Litchfield enquirer., 1840-01-02

taa-
 ucuiarly where our banks are used as depo-
 sitOries of the public moneys. a danrgrouss ] political influence in the United Eta,es. E
 have deemed ia my duty to bring the subject
 to your notices and ask for it your serious consideration.
 Is an argument required beyond the exuo. sition of these facts, to show the isnnronr;eetv of using our banking institutions as deposito. ries of the public money Can we venture not only to encounter the risk of their indi.
 vldual and mutual mismanagement, but, at the same time, to place otir foreign aad do-
 mestic policy entirely under tlye control of a
 foreign moneyed interest," To do SO is to
 impair the independence of our Government,
 as the present credit system has already
 impaired the independence of our banks It
 IS to submit an its important operations, wnether of peace or war, to be controlled or tnwarted at first by our own banks, and then by power abroad greater than themselves. cannot bring myself to depict the humilia- non 10 which this Government and people mIgnt pc sooner or later reduced, ifthe means TOT deIenolng their rights are to. be made de. pendent upon those who may have the most powerful of motives to impair them, Nor IS 1t only in reference to the effect of tnls state of things on the independence of our Government or of our banks, that the suo]ect presents itself for consideration it is to be viewed also in its relations to the gene ral trade of our country. The time is not long past when deficiency of foreign crops. was thought to afford a profitable market for the surplus of our industry but now we watt with feverish. anxiety the news of the English harvest, not so much from motives of commendable sympathy, but fearful lest lis anticipated failure should narrow the field of credit :here. Does not fhis speak volumes. to the patriot! Can a system be beneticent. wise, or just, which creates greater anxiety for interests dependent on foreign credit, than for the general prosperity of our own country, and the profitable expoFtation of the surplus produce of our labor?
 Ahe circumstances to which F have thus adverted, appear to me to afford weighty reasons, developed by late events, to be ad- aed to those which have on former occa- sions offered when submitting to your better knoWieage and disccrnment the propriefy of from banking institutions. Nor has any thlng occurred to lessen, in my opinion, the force ot what has been heretofore urged.- The only ground on which that custody can De desired by the banks, is the profitable use which they make of the money. Such use would be regarded in individuals as breach os trust, or crime of great magnitude, and yeth may be reasonably doubted whethery nrst and last, it is not attended with more miscnievous consequences, when permitted to the former than to the latter The prac- tice of permitting the public money to be used by its keepers as here, is believed to be peculiar to this eoantry, and to exist scarcely any where else. To procure it here, impro- per influences are appealed to; unwise con- nections are established between the Govern ment and vast numbers of powerful State in- stltutions; other motives than the public good are brought to bear both on the Execr- tive and Legislative departments, and selfish combinations, leading to special legislation, are formed. It is made the interest of bank ing institutions and their stockholders thro'- out the Union, to use their exertions for the increase oftaxation, and the accumulation of surplus revenue and, while an excess is aHorded, the means are furnished for those excessive issues which lead to extrnvagant trading and speculation, and are the forerun- ners of vast debt abroad, and a suspension of the banks at home.
 Impressed, therefore, as am, with the proprlety of the funds of the Government being withdrawn from the private use of ei- ther banks or individuals, and the public money kept by duly appointed public agents; and believing, as do, that such also is the judgment wbich discussion, reflection and experience have produced on the public mind, leave the subject with you. It is, at all events, essential to the interests of tho community and the business of the Govern ment, that a decision should be made.
 Most of the arguments that dissuade us from employing banks, in the custody and disbursement ofthe public money, apply with equal force to the receipt of their notes for public dues. The difference is only in form.. In one instance, the Government is a credi- tor for it's deposits, and in the other for the notes it holds. They afford the same oppor- t,inity for using the public moneys, and equally lead to allthe evils attendant upon ii. since bank can as safely, extend its dis counts on a deposit of it's notes in the hands of a public officer, as on one made in its own vaults. On the other hand, it would give to- the Government no greater security, for, in case of failure, the claim of the noieholder would be no better than that of a depositor.
 am, aware that the danger of inconven- fence to the public, and unreasonable pres- sure upon sound banks, have been urged as objections to requiring the payment of the tieEs have been greatly exaggerated. From the best estimates we may safely fix the amount of specie in the country at eighty five millions of dollars. and the portion of that which would be employed at any one time in the receipts and disbursements of the Government. even if fthe proposed change were made at once, would mol, il is now, after fuller investigation. believed, exceed four or five millions. If the change were gradual. several years would elapse before that sum would be required, with annual oppoFtuni- ties, in the mean time, to alter the law; should experience prove 1t to be oppressive or incon- yenient. The portions of the community on whose business the change would immedl- ately operate. are comparatively small. nor is if believed that it's effect would be in the least unjust or injurious to them.