Piney Woods planter. (Liberty, Mi. [i.e. Miss.]) 1838-1840, 1840-02-08


ition and Illustration of our views, | mus
beg your continued indulgence. 1t is saiC
that these bank charters are contracts
within the meaning Of the clause Of the
constitution, prohibiting the State from
passing any law mpairing the obligation
Of contracts. Let us take this view fol
moment and observe the contradiction
and absurdity into which we will be i'm
nedia:eIy involved. To constitute con-
tract, there must be contracting parties
--able and willing to eontract--and there
must be consideration given by the
one for some benefit conferred by the
other. Now in the chartering of the
banks, what has been the consideration
given for the benefit? and what has con-
stituted that benefit? The benefit has
been the privilege Of exercising a high
and important branch Of the sovereign
authority, to wit: the regulation OF the
circulating medium OF the country; in
which, OF course, as in every other pub
lie office, certain emoluments must be
derived, or none would undertake the
task. The consideration pretended to be
given tor this privilege is the public con-
venience and benefit produced. This
consideration then instead of being some
thing paid to the government, as bo-
nus, a grant Of lands, or Of services, is
really nothing more than a convenience
and public benefit which the government
r itself produces by this means. Both
grants come from but the one side; and
, there really then is but one party in
stead of two, as is always necessary t
: contract. 1t is the government itse
f which produces the benefits, by the gran
! as u means for such purpose; and no
: the grantees; who without being employ
! ed by the government as instruments
would be for all such purposes entlrel,
, powerless. Then to hold that the DC
neits received BY State from the err
| ection Of bank corporations are TO be
construed as consideration for the giant
ing of their charters, is just as absurd
as TO suppose that man should mag
line himself under obligations to some
second person, for the food and ralment
with which he provides himself; using,
as he will, whatever instrument ne choo-
SEES for such purposes. But taking this
public convenience produced, to be some
thing rendered separately and exclusive
~ by the banks, and which they had
the power to render Independently of the
governmental aid, still gentlemen involve
themselves in a glazing contradiction,
which renders their conclusion nothing.
The consideration being public convent
ence, then they we're to render public
services, and the object of their creation
was to subserve the purposes of public
benefit and utility, in aiding the govern
ment in the administration Of soyer-
eign power. Then the very considera-
ton pleaded as that which constitutes
them a contract, is the quality which,
according to the criterion above estab-
hshed, includes them within the defini-
ton OF public corporations, and makes
them therefore contro!lable by the Lee
gislature. No, Mr.. Chairman, every grant
is not contract; Notwithstanding the
high authority of Judge Story, which has
been quoted to that effect. The decision
is entirely unwarranted by the great prin-
ciples Of legal science--is dangerous to
be taken as received and established
axiom--and is so contrary to common rea-
son, and so plainly false to the common
est understanding, that ifadyanced by the
highest authority of the earth, as long as
it came as it now comes, as mere ipse
dixit of a fallable being, unauthorized and
by any reasons to support it,
would still, boldly and independently |
scout it as ridiculous. That grants Of
property, whether with or without bonus
paid by the grantee, may have the force
and obligation of contract, am not dis
posed to deny. OF such character was
the grant in the case on which the dici-
sion was made by this learned Judge,
part of which decision, unguardedly and
doubtless innocently, advanced the mon
strous doctrine that grants differed in no.
thing from contracts--a doctrine we have
heard quoted as applicable to the question
before as, making every grant of Legis-
lature or an individual whether Of proper
ty, power, or privilege, entirely uncontrol-
liable and irrevocable by the party grant
ing.. But the gran; of corporate and
banking privileges is not a grant Of pro-
perty. 1t is simply delegation of part
Of the public authority, for the better ad-
to the wants OF the commune
ty; under which grant or delegation, there
can spring no vested right to its contiuu-
ance or possession by the grantee. except
such as must be eontrollab'e and exercis-
ed at the will Of the party granting. I'll
we are 70 adopt the doctrine that grants
are contracts, every public agent or officer