Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1834-01-23

DailA oiai d;scretionary and unlimited power
| over the public deposites. And now what re-
III, had the Senator to make! HAD ne fetract-
] Ell Ell the error? Not at all. Did he now proceed
! in his argument as if Mr.. C.,s remarks IN 1914
related to the present bank, ana not TO the Dill
then under considerations lei MI =. n 10
told the Senator that his remarks ID 1914 had
NO relation to the present bank, and could not
he used in sustaining the Secretary what then
had been the Senator's reply? That Mr. Z.
opinion at that time was, that the power OF the
Secretary was unlimited under the present Char
ter though then not in existence, fofgettlhg ina,
the bank bill of 1914 had no provision in regard
70 the public deposites; and when, OF course, not
at all applicable to the present charter, Which,
contained an express provision on the supJectol
the deposites fthere had been no provision,
the case would have been different
The deposites, under the present chafter, was
subiect of contract between the Government
anJ tba Rank and the only question that could
he presented was as to the power that mad peen
retained by the former, under the slXteehtn sec
ton in reference to them.
Mr.. C. said that when the Senator next quot
ed him. he desired that he would quote MN cor;
rectly and fully giving the subject, Tune, ana
circumstance, so that he might De JuoSeu VI ny
the public on his own acts, and not by the IN
terpretation or comments of the Senator. lie
felt that. in the present instance, great injustice
had been done him He had regard Tor MS
consistency; he hoped that when the Senator
published his speech, he would place the suoJect
in the light which the facts otthe case, ana truth
and justice required.
T6ere was another point which, as he was
no. ne would notice He (Mr. CD had conced-
ed in his remarks, when he addressed the Sc
nate on the subject of the deposltes, that the
President. in removing the former Secretary or
the Treasury, had been guilty, not of an act OF
usurpation, but of an abuse of power-a great
and dangerous abuse of power which he stated
in the strongest and most emphatic language
The Senator in quoting his authority to prove
that the act was not usurpation, omitted entirely
to state what Mr. c. had said in reference TO
the abuse of powers SO that any one reading
the speech ofthe Senator, without knowing MS
Mr.. C.'s sentiments, would be led to the con-
clusion that he (Mr. CO. justified the exercise
of the power of the President, in reference to
the removal, when, IN TACT, no one couQ more
condemn it.
Mr.. RIVES would enter into no discussion at
present but he had one remark further TO
make touching the views of the Senator from
South Carolina The whole matter turned on
difference of opinion in regard to the 18th sec
ton of the United States Bank charter. The
Senator commended that the power over the de-
posites existed under an obligation in the con-
tract, while Mr.. r. contended that the power
was unqualified in the Secretary of the Trea-
sury. under the reservation in the law; and he,
in consequence, had the right to remove for any
reason. 1t was equivalent to no stipulation at
all, and he therefore might remove the deposi-
ties whenever he would, and the stipulation I'M
posed on him no absolute obligation whatever
On this difference Of opinion the whole argu-
mert rested
Mr. r. thought that the Senator, after ALL
had not established the improperly of apply
ing his remarks of 1914 to the general question,
whether or not the object of the power over the
deposites, was any other than that OF their safe
keeping Mr. r. had stated that the just object
ofsuch power as the Secretary possessed, was
to control the conduct Of the bank, and had not
mere reference to its solvency, the safe keep
ing the public money. 1t was intended to re-
serve in the Secretary power to insure the ge-
neral good conduct of the bank.
Mr.. CALHOUN One word more in reply
Had the charter, said Mr.. c., contained no pro-
vision in reference to the deposites, there would
have been no contract in reference to them be-
tween the Government and the bank; and II no
contract, then the former would nave nad unii-
mited power to make its deposites in the bank,
or to withhold them at pleasure. Such was the
case in the bill of 1914; and Of course no ques-
ton could be raised between the bank and the
Government as to the extent of its power over
the deposites, under such circumstances. Such
was the case in reference to the bill 1914; but
the case is very different under the present char
shall be made in the bank; thus making them,
as acknowledged by the Secretary himself, in
his report, subject of contract between the Go
vernment and the bank, and leaving as the
question. the extent of the power Of the Secre~
tary to withhold the deposites, in conformity to
the contract--a question which, by no possibili-
ty, could come up under the bill of 1914; and OF
course nothing that could be said in reference
to the bill could, by any possibility, be apphca-
BILE to the present discussion.
Mr.. RIVES said, that in quoting the opinion
of the Senator he had placed the issue on the
general principle. The Senator had urged that
the only legitimate object of power over the
| depostes was the safe keeping of the public mo-
| ney; Mr.. RIvEs had made it more comprehen-
sive so as to include security for the general
good conduct of the bank; and if Mr. r. was
right in this, the Senator's observation was APP
plicable and conclusive, and Mr. r. had held il
as high authority
/ PRIVATE CORRESPONDENCE