Burlington free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1827-1865, 1841-09-03

nature, can doubt the fact, that the circum-
stance, that the applicants for the extension
of the charter, were opposed in politics, to
those who were called upon to grant the IA
vor, had much influence in producing a re-
suit ? Besides, tho influence of tho state
banks, was brought to bear on this question
and the hircling press of the day, had tcom-
cd with the most rancorous and scurrilous
abuse towards every member of congress-,
who even dared to express an opinion favor
able to a renewal. Bribery and corruption,
were the hackined cpithcts of a slanderous
and gain-saying press. But, thank God,
the excitement passed away and men
began to return to their right reason.-
In 1915, a bill for the creation of a nation
al bank, passed the House Of Representa-
tivcs, by a vote of 100 to 81 and was con-
Cured in, by the Senate. This bill as we
all know was vetocd by President Madison,
tho Pride of Virginia, not on constitutional
grounds /; but on account of the details Of
tho bill. Though Madison had been a cham
pion in the opposition, he had the magma
nimity TO surrender his individual opinion;
and in his veto message he waived all objec-
ton 10 the bill on the grounds of its vncon-
stiiutionality /; the question in his view being
fully settled. At the opening of Congress,
in 1916, Madison, in his message, brought
, the subject Of a national bank to tho consid-
Grafton Of Congress. The measure was re-
; commended by the Secretary of tho Trea-
r sury {; and the bill establishing an%ational bank
! passed both Houses of Congress without
1 much opposition on tho ground Of constitu-
tional scruplcs; and received the signature
of the President. In 1919, in the case of
NJ Cullah v. Maryland, 4 Whcaton's Rep,
: this question came before the Supreme Court
e of the United States. Though the court
Q could then scarcely consider it an open qucs-
ton, entirely unprcjudiccd by an exposition
: of the constitution, established, as they say
c upon great consideration, by Legislative
Acts; and though Chioi-Justice Marshal
says " it woud require no ordinary share o.
intrcpidity to assert, that Measure adopico
under the circumstances attending the pas.
sage Of this aw (that is the law Of 1916
was a bold and plain usmpation, to mAie1
the Constitution garc no countcnancc :
l. Yet they proceeded to examine tho question
upon principle; and we're unanimously of OPT
Mon that tho law was constitutional. If
sir, you will rc-examine the opinion as pro
nounced by Gil. J. Marshall with care, an,
10 as one, open to conviction, is it too mucI
IN TO expect that you will hesitate, as to tn
Il, correctness Of your opinions upon this i'm
, portant question. In Osborn v. Bank q
lie the United States, Q Whcaton's Rep, tn
n. decision of the Court in NJ CulIoh v, Mary
'n land was reviewed and confirmed. After a
al this accumulation Of precedent, Gen. Jack
IL son it is true, in 1929, says " the ~consiitu
tiOnolty as well as the eapcdiency, of tn
or law creating the bank of 1916 is we'll ques
TX toned by "a large portion Of our fellow citi
:. zens." But Congress did not drink dorm
OF these suggestions. In responding to them
= tHNJ Wclc sdtlSilcu as ~ tic COnStllutlOnallt
IL of tho measure in saying: I" it had re
ny peatedly received the sanction of Congress.
TO In 1882, the renewal of the charter of ISL
We with some notifications received the sane
p ton of the Senate and House of Represcr
ne %tativcs; but the reto Of the President. |
this most extraordinary paper, there are a.
!! sumptions not supported by facts; and ii
le. deed he says: an argumcn, can be base
an on precedent against a bank, and he can NJ
assent to the conclusion that the question
u, settled by preccdent;" adding mere PR
he cCdent is a dangerous source of authority.
ch In this reto message, Gen. Jackson sa,
'sc " Congress decided against a bank in 1915
and as he is then discussing the constitution
a atty Of the measure, and the force of pr,
as cedents, the remark can have no pom
:er unless he means on constitutional ground
he But how is the fact A bill actually passe
ir. both Houses of Congress establishing
ter bank but was retoed by Madison F; not c
'er constitutional grounds, but upon obiectio,
- " NC oNtdIio vi tlC in III MS CCtD lie
en- sage he says, " in his judgment the col
" stitutional question is precluded by repeate
~ recognItions Of the power" In 1881, M
'c Madison in his letter to Chas. J. ~Ingerso
81 now before the public is explicit on this SUI
ject. P~recedcnts, expounding the cons,
" %tution," he says, should guide and owe
IN rule indicidual opinions, and in contormi
with the views here taken of the respect d'
to deliberate and reiterated preeedents,
was, that the Bank Of the United State
,as though on the original question held to be u
constitutional, received the Executive 81
,on nature in 1916" Though in 1911 the
ich was a majority of one in the House in {
o,o vor of an indefinite postponement of t
VIZ bill /; yet this included all those, who we
H., opposed 10 the bill from whatever cause.