Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1834-02-08

hpln
s,-an of the rights of the bank in this particular,
as Of the good of the country. SO that if the
Sscretarv's power be in truth absolute and I'M
CONDITIONAL it restraints Congress from judging
,ybether the public good is injured by the reno
val. lust as much as it restraints 1t from ]udg-
ING whether the rights of the bank are injured
by the removal; because the hmltanon II any, Is
equally Tor the security OF the paIK ana oi the
public.
If the bank is interested in retaining the depo-
sites. then it is interested in the truth fasity
in the sufciency or unsufficiency, of the reasons
given for their removal. Especially isit so in
terested, since these reasons are to be rendered
to a tribunal which is to judge over the Secreta-
ry, and may form a different opinion on the
validity of these reasons, and may reverse his
decision 1t clearly has an interest in retaining
the depostes, and therefore is as clearly con-
cerned in the reasons which the Secretary may
olive for their removal. And as he is bound to
give reasons, this very circumstance shows
that his authority is not absolute and uncondl-
tional Because, how can an appeal be given
from the decision of an absolute power; and how
can such power be called on to give reasons
for any instance of its exercised If it be abso-
lutte its only reason is a reference to its own
will
The committee think, therefore, that no abso-
lutte and unconditional power was conferred on
the Secretary; that no authority was given him
by which he could deprive the bank of the Gus
tOdv of the public moneys without reason;
and that therefore, his opinion is not to be adj
mitted. that in no event can any order for remov-
ing the deposites impair the right secured to the
bank by the charter If removed without good
cause, the committee think the removal does
impair the rights ofthe bank.
But the opinion of the Secretary as to his own
powers, is hardly more limited in respect to
the Government and the country than in regard
to the rights of the bank.
His opinion is, that it is his duty, and within
his authority, in this view, also to withdraw the
deposites ofthe public money from the bank,
whenever such a change would, in any degree,
promote the public interest. "The safety OF the
deposites,n he says, g the ability Of the bank to
meet its engagements, Its hdellty IN the perform
ance ofits obligations, are only part of the
considerations by which his judgment must be
guided The general interest and convenience
of the people must regulate his conduct"
By the general interest and convenience OF
the people, the Secretary can only mean, OF
course his own sense of that interest and con-
venience; because they are not otherwise to be
ascertained than by his own judgment.
The Secretary's construction OF the law, IS,
therefore, that he has power to remove the de-
posites, whenever, for any reason he thinks the
public good requires it.
In this Interpretation Of the design and object
of the law, and this broad construction OF the
Secretarys power, the committee do not con-
cur.
Although the power of the Secretary is not
restricted by any express words or terms, nor
by any particular occasions for its exercise,
specially and expressly designated or prescrib-
bed by the law, yet it is not to be admitted, as
the committee think, that this power is to be
exercised Caprcously or in an arbitrary man
ner, or for loose or COnjectured reasons, or on
any idea of an unlimited discretion, vested in
the Secretary, to Judge on the general question
of the public welfare; or indeed, on any other
grounds than those of necessity, or plain and
manifest xpedience, directly connected with the
subject over which the power exists.
The keeping of the public money is not
matter which is left, or was intended to be LETT
at the will of the Secretary. or any other officer
ofthe Government. This public money has
place fixed by law, and settled by contract; and
this place is the Bank of the United States. In
this place it is to remain, until some event oc-
cur requiring its removal. To remove 1t, there
fore from. this place, without the occurrence OF
lust cause, is to thwart the end and design OF the
law. defeat the will of Congress, and violate the
contract into which the Government has So
lemnly entered.
1t is fit to be observed, that no other law con-
fers on the Secretary such wide dlscretlon over
the public interests, In regard to any SUBJECT or
gives him power to act on the rights OF others,
or on the rights Of the public, in part OF his ON
cial duties, with so unlimited an authority as IS
here asserted. Every where else, he appears IN
the character of limited and restricted agent.
He is the financial officer Of the Government;
he is the head of the Department of the Treasu-
ry. His duty is, to report annually to Congress
the state of the finances, and to communicate to
either House, when requested any information
respecting the Treasury and he is to superln-
tend the collection of the revenue. But he has
no authority over the circulating medium OF the
country, either metallic or paper, nor has he the
control of the national currency. 1t IS no part
of his duty either to contract or expand the cir
culation of bank paper, nor in any other way to
exercise general superintendent over the mo-
ney system of the country. These general lnte-
rests of the Government and the people are not
confided to his hands by any Of the laws which
created his office, and have prescribed his du-
ties-and the committee are OF opinion, that the
charter of the bank no more intended to give
such wide scope to the Secretary IN regard to
the deposites than other laws intended to give
him the same wide scope in respect to other du-
ties of his office. No intimatlon OF such lnten-
ton is found, either in the charter itself, or IN
any of the legislative debates which took place
in both Houses when the bank was established
or in the discussions which have been more