Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1834-01-04
ALEXANDRIA GAZETTE.
Mr.. POLK'S SPEECH
On the Remoual Of the Deposites. -CoNTINUEr

removing the late Secretary oil the treasury. inc
President of the United States had exercised on
ly the ordinary power conferred on him Oy Tue
Constitution, and fully sanctioned by Precedeht;
and also endeayored to establish, from reason
and usage, that the present Secretary OF the
Treasury IN ordering the removal of the public
danos;tea from the Bank of the United States,
had done nothing that was novel or unprecedent-
ed hut had exerted power over the funds OF
the Government conferred upon him by law, and
which his predecessors had used IN like manner,
and that he had assigned to this House good and
sufficient reasons for so doing,
shall now with what brevity may, proceed
to examine the reasons adduced oy hiu'' 'ose."e,
with the objections which have oeen urgeo dsa'"s'
such an exercise OF power.
Tue first objection we have heard IS OF po
nular character, and is one which, at tlrst vlew'
might seem to have something IN II; II ~. mat
the removal was ordered within only sixty days
from the meeting of Congress- Why. 1t IS ask
ed. did not the Secretary walt! why diu ne
not submit question of this moment TO me Re
presentatives of the PeopIes This seems spe-
cious. But, let it be remembered, that Con-
Dress. by the Charter of the Bank. had Invested
itself of all charge of the deposites, or controi
over them. and had vested it exclusively IN the
Secretary of the Treasury; and, therefore, had
this body been i'm session at the time, 1t would
have had no power to interfere as to the place
where the public moneys should be deposited
Why, then, ought the Secretary to have waited!
And for what? To send letter to this House,
and ask our advice? Sir, would ne not have
been laughed to scorn, had he taken such
course? Would il not have been sald-why, here
ia bieh financial officer of the Government who
fears to take the responsibility which the law de-
wolves upon him. and who applies to others to
stand before him as his shield while IN the dis
charge of his duty? Sir. il would justly nave
been SAID But had he dome so, the deposltes
could not have been removed until he decided TO
give the order HIS reasons for removing them
are required by the charter to be glveA to this
House, not before, but subsequent to, their re-
moval. Well, sir, and what would have heen
said. had he remoy ed the deposites three days at
ter Congress had adjourned at the last session!
WHY. then. we should have been told that he on
" waited till the Representatives of the People
had turned their backs; and this would have
been said with still more reason than the
other.
Suppose again that he had waited until three
DAYS after Congress had assembled. The po-
pular argument then would have been (thOugh
there would have been nothing in 1T that here
we had mere Secretary, in the very lace OF the
Peoples Representatives. senturlng. without
their concurrence, upon this high banded mea'
sure. for ssuch il would have BEEN called. SO
that, as it seems to me, objections as to the ftme
of the removal might have been urged with equal,
if not with greater force, had any other period
been selected than that which was actually chosen
for the removal. | think that the time selected
was fortunate one: il enabled the Peoples re-
representatives. to consider the subject. and to give
at least some expression OF their will to those
whom they should send here. Here are Repre-
sentatives from all portions OF the Union, who
have now an opportunity OF bringing with them
some expression of the public sentiment on the
measure. So much for this objection. which, to
a merely casual observer, might appear to have
more in it than ii really contains.
come now to what the Secretary gives as his
prominent reason for the measure he adopted,
VIZ: the probable expiration of the Bank Charter
about two wears hence. 1t was no part of the
Governments contract with the Bank that
the Deposites should remain in its custody dur
ing the whole period of ITS existence: on the
contrary, il was expressly stipulated that they
might be withdrawn by the Secretary at will
Nor was any reason stated as the ground OF re-
m0val. IL was not necessary, to render the re-
mova lawful, that the deposites should be un.
safe in the hands of the Bank other reasons
might operate to produce the Secretary's deter
mination. This was conceded in the argument OF
the gentleman from South Carolina-he granted
that there might be other sufficient reasons for
such measure. The Secretary has assigned
the probable expiration of the Charter in 1886.
and the necessity in anticipation of the state of
things which must necessarily take place at that
time, of providing a currency for the public use.
and place of safe keeping for the public moneys
without disturbing the channels of trade, and
occasionlns the great shock to the country which
would otherwise be inevitable. Sir, the gentle
mau from South Carolina has not attempted to
meet the argument of the Secretary. HIS whole
argument is based on the assumption that the
Bank Charter is to be renewed.
The gentleman spoke of the embarrassments
of the country, the condition of things in 1917
and l9, aud what would be the state of the cur
rency If there were no Bank Of the United States
The Secretary proceeds on different assump
ton he goes on the principle that the Bank is
not TO be re chartered. He considers himself
bound to take the laws as they are; in addition to
which, he has the further ground Of the public
sentiment to pretty great extent. On tina,
point, may boldly appeal to gentlemen here.