Litchfield enquirer., 1834-02-27

removal of the deposites on any such ground | as this. unless 1t be conceded that he may use the power of fFemoval as punishment for any offence of any kind which the bank, in his O. piniOn, may have committed. The cOmmit- l tee hass already expressed the opinion that no such latitude of power belongs to him. and the assertion of such d power, for such cause as is new under consideration, shows that the power ought never to belong tO any SecFeta- ry; because the offence, on account of which tits here proposed to be exercised. is pOlit- icaT offence, incapable Of definition, depending
 merely on the SrGretary's opinion, and ne- cessarily drawing into ifs consideration the
 exciting contf0terted topics Of the day. The hank. it is said, A has sought tO Obtain pOllfi-
 cal pow er.'' What is the de6nitiJn of such
 an offence as this What acts constitute 1t
 How is it to be tried Who Is tO be the judge! What punishment shall follow con
 viction All must see that charges ot this
 hatItc are but loose and vague accusationss
 which may De made at any time, and can
 never be either prnyed or disapproved; and
 to admit them as sufficient grounds' "r justify
 the removal of the dep0sites, would be to con
 cede to the Secretary the possession of power purely arbitrary.
 The main fact relied on for this easise ofre- l moval shows how extremely unsafe all pro-
 ceedings on any such reasons must be. The. | main fact is, that; between December 1850, l and December 1881, the hank extended its ] loans twenty millions of dollars; and its fur ther alledged shaf, as if to leave no dOhht Of I the niotise of this extraordinary conduct, it coutioqed to add rapidly to it's loanss until in May. 1882, while it's petition for renewal was 1 pending. those loans amounted to sesenty millions. And the Secretary declares that this extraordinary increase of loans made in so sex ia HnfN
 tested election h a hich the bank took an open
 and direct interest, dtmonstrates that it was
 using It's money tu obtain hold upon the peO-
 pie of the country. to induce them. by the ap- prehensf0h Ofruin, to vote against the candid
 ate W h0n 1t desired to defeat. This is strung assertion, bat, 50 fat as the C6,nrnittee per-
 ceiye, it is assertion merely. It is hut the
 Secretary's own inference from facts, from
 which very facts his predecessors in office
 have drawn no such conclusions.
 This great extension of the loans. he t 'fe-
 membered, took place in 1881. Why was it
 not then complained of? How should it have escaped the vigilance of the Secretary at that day, at the time it ttook place? And. ift did Eot escape his vigilance. why did he not then remove the deposites? So, also. as to the ! amount of loans in May, 1882. That amount was perfectly wei! known at the time. and if 4 it proved any offence. why was not the pun l ishment inflicted then l? How should all Oth- \ er Secretaries have slept over this great mis- I chief? asss+s! ! It might further be well asked, what eyi- dence is there Of the existence of any such motive as is imputed to the bank in this exten- sidn of It's loans There is nO evidence but 4 the mere fact itself of the extension, and 1t cannot be denied that other and very differ ent reasons for ttie eextensions may have exist 4 ed; so that the charge is proved no otherwise 4 than by infarring d had motive from the act fl lawful in itself, and for which good reasons
 tnay have existed, nor is it either, acknow l. edged, ..vr, 50 far as the committee know, proved that the bank took an open and direct interest, as corporation, in the election re- ferfed to- The hank certainly was much in- | terested in cs.rtain accusations which had been ] brought against it. and which became subjects of public discussion during the pendency Of ] that election. lthad been charged with great
 misconduct and gross violation of its charter. These accusations must undoubtedly have called on the directors for answer. If made
 before Congress. they were to answer before,
 Congress !; if made iudicially,. they were to answer in the courts if made in an official and formal manner. and in that manner sub n,itted to the Judgment of the country. the
 directors were bound to meet them before
 that country by esefy fair use of fact and ar- gument, nut only for the purpose Of defend ing them seses as directors, but for the higher
 purpose of maintaining the credit ofths bank ,, and protecting the property entrusted to their
 care. fin thas defending the bank before tie coniinInity, the directors carried their
 measure beyond this fair object of defence, or if they resorted to dishOnorabe or indsco- rous modes of discussion if they sought ! fathef to inhame than so reasnn; ifthey s,ib- lstituted personal criniuation for arg,.ment, ifl even they met invectise and violence with cor
 responding invective and violence; they fol- lowed adexamples. and are natto be justified But on their right tUSiefend themselves be-
 fore the public against grave charges brought against them and urged before the public, the
 c0nimittee entertain no doubt, and they lare
 equally clear in opinion that the Secretary of
 ths Treasury is net Constituted the judge of the mode Ofiexereisine this right. and cannot
 justly remove the depbsitea merely because
 the conduct ofthe bank. in this particular. has
 not happened tO conform to his wishes.
 The committee. therefore, consider this last
 reason of the Secretary equally insufficient
 with the rest; and they regard it as the most
 objectionable of all in its principle, inasmueh
 az M pTocerds on grounds which, if admitted. would leavea very high official duty to be ex- creased from considerations connected with tue political feelings and party contests of eve. Fl uay' with no guide but the individual opiu.
 ion of the officer who is t0 perEorm the act an opinion which, it is pOssible may itsslf hs.