Vandalia Whig and Illinois intelligencer. [volume] (Vandalia, Ill.) 1832-183?, 1834-04-17

that they shall not be made there, and
this order is not to be executed by him
self, but by those TO whom the general
law gives the custody of the treasure,
when the place selected BY Congress is
repudiated by the Secretary. Nothing
can afford IA stronger argument against
the asserted authority of the secretary
to direct in what place the public depo-
sites shall he made, than the omisslon|
to describe his power as that of ordering
or directing them to be made in some
other place or places. Until the law shall
give the power to the secretary, which
it probably never will DO, without rcgu
lating its exercise SO as to make it con
slstent with the public safety, the mino
rlty must be understood as wholly deny
ing the efficacy fany practice whatever
to give il, in violation of the plain pro-
visions of the act of 1880.
But ifthe treasury practice was known
to Congress. what follows? What is the
import of the provision in the charter.
that the public moneys shall be deposited
in the bank, except that the practice
was thought dangerous to the safety Of
the public moneys, aud therefore was TO
be abolished, unless where that safety
itself required change Of the place Of
| deposite? The question under consde-
ration is, whether any thing but the
safety Of those moneys, and their due
distribution, authorized the order: and
it is an extraordinary mode of proving
the secretary's power, to show former
practice TO that effect, before the char
ter was granted, and which the charter
provision effectually opposed.
The removal of the deposites must
have been regarded by the Congress
which gave the charter as a certain loss
to the bank. The bank was to pay for
them, and to be at liberty to employ
them according to the usage and prac.
tice OF banks; holding itself ready to
pay, on demand, whatever should be re-
CURED, in pursuance Of appropriations
by law. The advantage Of possessing
them was great, and the disadvantage OF
losing them, after paying for the posses
slug, was greater. If they were to be
removed on account Of their insecurity,
or for any breach of contract by the
bank, or to place them where the bank
could not herself distribute them, it is
easy to perceive why no provision is
made for an indemnity TO the bank; but il
hey might be removed for other causes.
particularly if removed to promote other
interests, at the expense of the bank, in
demnity would have been provided, be-
cause it would incontestably be due
A. The decisive reasons, however, a.
ga,nst allowing the secretary to order
the removal for any other cause, is that
the grant of such discretion abandons
the bank, as we'll as the country, to the
secretary of the treasury, and give him
sway over the nation, which belongs
to no other than the legislative depart
ment.
4 1t is not To ha doubt that the entire
removal of the deposites is fatal to the
bank as IA national bank. Instead OF
being the bank of the nation, the nation,
by dePositing its treasure elsewhere. a
Idopts other banks, and sets them up IN
Opposition. This is the certain and an
denianle effect Of the secretary's act
and if he had power to do this, he had
power to repeal the hank charter. If,
Indeed. the bank had disqualified herself
for her duties, by insolvency or in6deli-
ty, the removal Of the deposites, to Sc
cure their safety, could only be consider
ed as remuneration OF the bank, after
the bank had renounced the nation; but
a removal for other causes. however hon
est or good they may be, can only be re-
garded as removal to destroy the bank.
AS 10 the suggestion, upon which the
committee appear to place some reli-
ance, thai safety cannot be the only rea-
son, because, in case of danger, the re-
moval could not be effected, if ii proves
any thing, it proves that safety cannot
have been even one Of the objects of the
power, because it was an unattainable
object; and then it proves too much.
A cause, then. which neither concerns
the safety and due transfer of the public
moneys; nor is within the cognizance
Of the secretary's office; nor furnishes "a
moral justification for depriving the bank
of benefit which it has purchased and
paid for; nor can be confded to the
judgment and discretion of an indvid-
ual, without surIendering to him tie
established policy of the nation. cannot