Carroll free press. [volume] (Carrollton [Ohio]) 1834-1861, 1843-01-06

bhSfh Nv NAhfN
from the Senate would have met with
the concurrent votes Of large majority
OF the House, if it had not been encum
bered with soma impractIcable, %inexpe-I
diept, new (angled notions, altogether
unnecessary TO facilitate its p eratlon
The proviso incapacirating the Bank Of
SteubenviIle from a%valling itself or The
provisions OF the bill, was not sufficient,
but the majority must go a little further,
and add an individual liability clause
Another objection was, that the stock
holders were required 10 accept the
terms Of the bill, before awaiting them
selves OF its benefits, and had it passed a
week ago, they would not have had time
10 call g meeting, much less if it should
pass now. The minority were willing
TO unite with the majority and pass a
bill, provided it could be stripped of it's
objectionable features. The gentlemen
OF The other sido would not want our as
sistance, If they could carry with them
their own friends, but inasmuch as they
could not pass a bill without the concur.
renee Of the Wings, was it not 100 much
TO expect US to yield our support to all
their Objectionable notions? The posi-
ton OF The two sides Of the House was
we'll understood, and he would ask the
majority ifthey would not unite with the
minority in some measure, leaving out
contested matters Of opinion. Let us
r,re,a The no,rsn in n I'd 70 Ibia tapo
porary measure, and pass it, and in ma
turing a general and permanent system,
make if you please a bill as impractical
Bile and absurd as possible, incorporate
into it all your peculiar views, stuff it
full OF individual liability, make it as
thoroughly Democratic as you can, but
do not rely on our aid in passing it; if
you do we shall not give you much ere.
dit for your sagacity. We shall not OBJ.
ject to your passing it if you can. That
was a future matter, however, and bad
nothing to do with the present question.
Mr.. Meredith thought the gentleman
was very liberal in the terms Of the com
promise, which he appeared so anxious
to have adopted. What we're they?-
Why concede TO us all, and we are with
you. He old not come here to compro-
mise all the principles Of the Democratic
party, but would meet the gentleman hall
way. The individual liability clause, il
was true, was not Of much use in the
present bill, but still il served 10 retain
the principle, and if the gentleman would
consent TO let it remain, he (Mr M
would agree to strike out The p~roviso il
reference to the Bank Of SteubenvilIe
Would he submit 10 such a compromise,
or did he want us TO yield up all?
MIR. Schenck would not consent tc
such a modification, and thought the
gentleman had mistaken his position.
lie was not particularly anxious in re-
gard TO his amendment, which was nc
more nor less than the bill which haC
been introduced in the Senate by a dis
tinguished memberof the majority in tina
body-Mr. Latham-The author Of the
great humbug of last winter-ChanceIlo
OF the Exchequer, &c. The amendmen
was purely Of a Democratic origin, AMI
had not been altered in form or particular
Mrs would go for it, il not loaded will
amendments.
MIR. Meredith would accept the com
promise, provided the words now in cir
culation,' were stricken out; TO whIcI
Schenck assented.
Mr.. Odds was opposed to such disput
ing about points of difference between III,
two sides Of the House, as it served II
the END to drive members who were dis
posed to unite IN effectiug a compromises
back TO their own ground, thus widenin!
the breach. The banks, many of them
were willing to accept a bill, with a pro
vision of individual liability, and Their
was no just ground for opposing such q
provision.
Mr.. CLANCY (Mr Chambers in III,
CHAIR was opposed TO the amendment OIL
the ground of the assurances given by
the Chairman of the committee on Bank
and the. Currency that the banks wouI
not object TO the individual liabilil,
clause. He had come here instructed t
procure the establishment Of a system O
banking on proper principles, and TO ex.
tend the charters OF the existing banks t
enable them to settle their affairs. MI
G. renewed the motion for the previou
question, which had been made by M
Gallagher, AMI, at the request Of Mr.. G
withdraw.
The previous question prevailed, a NJ
the amendment reported by The Judicia
committee was then negatived-yeas 81
nays "a,
The bill TO amend an act regulatin
elections) was then ordered 10 be en-
crossed.
Mr.. Gallagher moved to suspend tn
yules, to take up his motion 10 reconside