The Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1837-1845, 1841-07-27

mf OLAf said the evils which gentlemen seemed
70 fancy could not occur II there any bank bill
"mch came within a hundred miles Of the present In
Poh " guards and restrictions, he should like to see
H. What did the prior clause in the section say Had
nor tue mead OF the Treasury the right inspect
DOORS, papers, and even accounts of individuals 7
~ no' the condition of the bank to be published
mohthy And were not the bank and its branches
open at all times 10 the free and unrestricted inspec-
| uoh OF committee of either House of Congress,
.oitse OF the stockholders, and TO each and all of
me directors Of the bank And yet Senators talk OF
sntouuihg 10 secrecy yelling in mystery" when
no present charter had outstnpped all that had ever
pfecrded A. IN the care taken to prevent every abuse
py ,ne amendment as II stood, any number of stock
no defs not less than ten and ON ming only single
snare OF stock which might have been obtained only
W before nave the right 10 go into an examina-
uoh oi all the private dealings of the Bank. Such
clause would place the institution completely at the
disposal OF ITS enemies. Persons from within, caprice,
OF malice could derange interrupt its functions
ne would therefore move TO modify the amendment so
as TO insert after the word Ten rho shall hold in their
ouh rtgh IRE hundred shares Of said Bank, and shall
| mare held The same three months prior thereto"
Mf, w ALhER said that the amendment had been
placed where It stood after a solemn argument in the
oon'ht'ee Now, the proposition was 10 open the ex-
aha'on TO the rich and wealthy stakeholder, but not
70 tne poor Before an examination can be made the
| stofkholder must own rs 900 worth of stock, while
Ten individuals with one more shares only could
not nave that privilege. Why make the rich stock
ho'"ci moft powerful tnhn he was i WI make 30
ouious discrimination, and directly al war
with the genius and spirit Of our institutions Why
not leave open to a2 He should demand the yeas
| and nays
| Mr. CLAY. The poor the poor to be
| abridged OF their rights How sol Was II TO be
supposed that any stockholders who might get hold
OF single share for the purpose of pryng into private
accounts OF individuals, of destroying the instlts-
ton, would be permitted to do SO What merchant,
what business man, would keep his accounts make
| -
stances The object not az the Senator bad
supposed to prevent examination; but he did not de-
sire TO see the amount small that any Spectator
his agent should have the power To examine into the
concerns Of the bank for sinister purposes. The Sc
natur from Mississippi mistaken supposing that
each one of these stockholders should hold five hun
dred shares II was that amount in their aggregate
capacity II was necessary that amount should be re-
presented before such examination was made and
any stockholders having for fear could any
time associate with one, If they pleased, TO Sc
! cure the object The principle OF his amendment
came from the other House--the popular, the demo
cratic branch.
Mr.. WALKER was not aware that the other
branch had adopted the feature.
Mr. CLAY said it was in the Bill before that body
The question on the amendment being taken, the
vote stood as follows:
YEAS-Messrs. Archer, Bates, Bayard Berrien
Choae, Clay, of Kentucky, Clayton Dixon, Evans
| Graham, Huntington, Kerr, Meuick Miller More
| head Phelps, Prentiss, Preston Rives Simmons
smith of Indiana, Southland, TalImadge, White
| Woodbrldge-25
/ NAYS-Messrs Allen, Barrow Benton, Bnchan-
an, Calhoun, Clay, of Alabama, Cuthbert, Fulton
Henderson, King Linn, McRoberts, Mouton, Nlch-
olson, Pierce Porter, Sewer Smith, of Conn, Stur-
geon, Japan Walker, Williams, Woodbury., Wright
! Young %
So the motion lost.
MIR. CLAY now expressed the hope that the entire
Inn nj har tnI
Mr. PORTER had voted for the amendment He
had some experience in relation to the banking princ
pie, and he though, the principle of publicity very
saluary one; but he not at the time of the
abuse 10 which it mg ht be subjected. He would move
TO modify the amendment so insert after the word
ten, each of whom shall hold not less than five
shares y
Mr.. WALKER professed himself satisfied with the
modification, and it was adopted.
The question was then taken on concuuing in the
amendment amended, and decided in the negative
as follows
YEAS-Messrs Allen, Benton Buchanan, Cal
| houn, Clay, of Ala Cuthbert Fulton, Henderson
King, Linn McRoberts Mouton Nicholson, Pierce
Porter, Sewer Smith, of Connecticut, Sturgeon
Tappan, Walker, Williams, Woodbury., Wright,
Young-24.
NAYS-Messrs. Archer Barrow, Bates, Bayard
Berrien, Choate Clay, of KY, Clayton Dixon
Evans, Graham, Huntington, Kerr, Merrick, Miller
Morehead, Phelps, Prentiss Preston Rves, Simmons
Smith, of Indiana Southland, Tallmadge, w hite
Woodbudge-26
! So the amendment was lost
On motion of Mr.. WRIGHT,
The Senate then al journed.