Burlington free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1827-1865, 1841-06-18
" wise and prudent course 10 leave the Sub

Treasury act in operation till substitute was
provided. He could not consent that the public
money should be left for single day under the
control of the Executive. After some remarks
to this effect, he moved an amendment removing
the dsablities,under the act of 1886, OF banks
issuing notes less than five dollars.
Mr.. Rives maintained that the operation of
the amendment of the Senator from Kentucky
was to re-establish the most Objectionable fea-
lures of that very Sub Treasury act which the
bill proposed to repeal. 1t would leave the pub
lie money in the hands of the Treasurer of the
United States, who held his office at the will Of
the President. The state of things had been
ably objected to,at the time Of the removal Of the
deposites, by the then Opposition, and the sup
porters of President Jackson acknowledged the
force of the objection. President Jackson him
self called on Congress to provide, by legisla-
ton, for the Keeping of the public money.
lie had understood the object Of this bill to be
the removal of the Sub Treasury alone, to make
room for new system. lie hoped that it might
be still limited to that object, and that the State
Bank system might stand until new system
could be created. lie had hoped that here was
neutral ground where all might meet for awhile.
Mr.. Mangum thought that the discussion had
arisen very unnecessarily. He believed that
there was no real difference of opinion between
the Senator from Virginia and the majority of
the G mmittee Of Finance. The Treasury de-
partment would find it totally impossible to make
provision under the act of 1886, for the keeping
of the public monies. Such banks as it desert
bed were not now in existence. Minute inquiry
and new provisions would be required in order
to act under that arrangement. lie had under
stood that this Congress was not to adjourn un-
til provision had been made for the legal and
constitutional guardianship of the public mon
ey Not more than month could pass before
the creation of new fiscal agent and it was
f impossible that the Treasury could return as be-
, fore to the custody Of the Executive.
t Mr. Barrow spoke at some length in support
, of Mr. Calhoun's amendment lie replied, par.
ticulary, to Mr.. Mangnm. He thought it
: leave the State Bank system to operate under
the act of 1886, until the creation Of new ts-
, cal agent.
Mr.. Preston said there seemed to be no diff.
t ference OF opinion between the two sides, on the
!, point that the Executive power should be hept
, distinct from the control Of the Treasury. lie
reminded them, that, in 1884, when this was the
subject of much discussion, it was admitted on
> all sides that notwithstanding the existence Of
. the law of 1883, due regulation for this legal
f control OF the Treasury, and its security from
Executive usurpaton, did not exist. This mus,
!, be equally conceded now lie did not concur
2 his positions. He did not wish to name the time
9 in which a new, minute and thorough legal pro.
vision could be made. lie did hot wish the
Treasury to remain, even for the shortest time
under Executive control. When they opposed
9 tire sub-treasnrv, it was on the very ground that
the state bank system, bad as it might be, bet
e ter than the Sub f., a,ury lie thought SO then
t lie thought so now.
Mr., Clay said that he was quite Indifferent
about the fate of his amendment; but he tho
!. it had been misunderstood. He insisted that the
e act OF 1876, no more secured the money against
usurpatlon than that of 1883, so long as the
P.esdea at Gas them exercised his own will or
every part OF the system by means of his Exec
utve power.
The restoration Of the state bank system
would be the revival of paralytic rickety thing
the moiety only Of which was in actual exis
T. tence, or capable Of performing it's part. lie
spoke eloquently for some time in defence o.
# his amendment.
Mr.. Calhoun replied. lie thought that the
senator from Kentucky was in fair way tc
q prove that the sub-treasury ought not to DO re
d pealed. He had contended that the revival Of
C the state bank system impossible, but he hat
presented no constitutional alternative. 1t wa.
: not however, true that there were no specie
paying Drinks in the SOUTH The Banks in South
o Carolina, some in Georgia, one in Missouri, and
, one in Arkansas, continued to pay specie. His
own amendment only went to repeal the disabil-
: tiles of Banks issuing small notes.
J., Mr.. Rives spoke forcibly and eloquently in
i reply to Mr.. Clay. He reminded him that in
1896, he, (Mr CIay,) and with great power sup
4 ported the state bank system on the very ground
/ that the act did secure the custody Of the pub
4 lie moneys.
Mr.. Clay asked, did that act after all secure
= the public money against the Executive, SO fal
t that if the President had then commanded the
. secretary to remove the deposites from giver
Bank on penalty of being expelled from office
he could not have succeeded.
Mr.. Rives replied that he could not. He con-
tnued his remarks to great length and will
Y be spread before our readers, if possible, here
1 after.
t Mr.. Berrien wished for more time TO deliber-
f ate before coming to a conclusion.
Mr.. Clay expressed a willingness to with.
draw the Amendment for the sake Of speedy
action.
Mr.. Berren objected to voting now even up.
Oh the question in that form. lie therefore mo.
we'd TO adjourn.
, Adjourned at half past three till twelve or
, Tuesday.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,.
MONDAY, June 7, 1sil.-After prolonged
discussion, in which, Messrs. Wise, Adams, w
c. Johnson, T. B. King, and Fillmore took part
and after an Intellectual attempt to adjourn, the
previous question was put and ordered Here
! arose another difficulty Under the old para-
, mentary rule the vote for the previous question
cut off all intermediate questions, such as a.
mendments, &c. and brought the House back tc
, the first motion on the subject The practice Of
the House for few years has boon to consider
it as cutting off the debate only, and causing the
question to be taken or all amendments in theiI
. order But the rules of the last House had no,
yet been adopted and this vote for the previous
question, technically had cut off the right of vo-
ting, even, on Mr.. Adams amendment, and made
the question before the House simply that Of
adopting last years rules complete. Mr.. Daw-
son urged this view of the question.
Mr.. Gardner hoped no advantage would be ia.
ken of an erroneous impression, and he believed
that the speaker had decided right, in making
the amendment of Mr.. Adams the main ques'