Democratic standard. [volume] (Georgetown, Brown County, Ohio) 1837-1850, 1844-03-19
NEW sERIEs.-VoL. nv. No. "a.

say this caunOt,be done, | think Is Qoin,
9 too TAR. Let the experiment be fairIl
: made, sOd Il our hopes should be dfssD
. pointed, some plan may be devised 5,
!. which 10 rid the whole country Of the avs
, tenn altogether. Surrounded IS we ar,
: By the banks Of other States, the cues.
ton we are called upon TO decide !,
, whether il would bc policy for us 20 hay,
, paper circulation composed Of the pa
per Of our sister States, and issued b.
institutions over which We have no con
trol. about which we can frequently know
bui little, aRd located generally al srea
dislance-oT,tO 10 have we'll restricted bank
Of our own, under our own control, sub
ject TO the supervision and inspection O
our own officers, aud liable to be absset
Whenevsrtbey cess 10 subseTVs It puS
lic interest? This is The true question
in practical point OfvieW, that the peO
pie Of Ohio are called on to decide.
knew il is said that we should set the
example Of dispensing with banks, and
other States would follow our lead. But
are there any hopes that our sister States
at least in.ouT time, will dispense with
banksi Each State has its banking sys
TEN. In most cases the charters have a
long time to rum and some are perpetual.
Isit not idle to suppose that these SOW
ereign and independent States would pull
down their banking system in order to
follow the example of Ohioa Under the
judicial decisions Of most Of The States,
the Legislature has no power, so far as
existing banks are concerned, and what.
ever we may think Of these decisions.
they are thellw in theSlates where made.
! know il claimed by some disiins
guished mentor whose opinions have
great respeci, that under that clause in
the Constitution of the United States
which prohibits the Slales from 'semiliing
bills Of credit" Ihe States have no power
to incorporate an association of individuals
to issue their bills Of credit. A bill of
credit emitted by State, and on the cred.
il of a State, and one emitted by an in.
diVidual on his own credit, or BY an as
sociatiOn Of individuals incorporated or
otherwise, NAV well be claimed TO be
different aud distinct things. lftbis Ques
ton was new one ,and fof the first time
raised, it might probably admit of some
doubt. But If there is any question af-
fscting the rights Of the cilizsn, or the
powers Of the States, clearly aud perma
nently settled, i. is this. The Supreme
Court Of the United States, the highest
judicial tribunal in the country, has de-
cided that the clause in the Constitution
above alluded 10. does not prohibit the
States from incorporating an ASSOCIATION
Of individuals with power to issue their
bills Of credit Of bank notes. Twill ven
ture to say that the highest judicial trlbu<
nal in every State Of this Union has either
directly or indirectly made a similar De,
cision. Every State Legislature in the
Unlon has exercised this power, and Is
sill in the daily habit of 1olng so. The
Federal Government, in all its various
departments, has virtually recognized this
power in the States. With this long train
Of authority and precedent, with this u
inform practice in favor Of the power, is
il going too fer to say this is no longer
an open question: And lf so, is there
any reason to believe the States will not
continue 10 exercise this power as hereto
foreS The truth is, we have the system
among US; it is deeply interviewer with
all our business transactions; and | see
no feasible way by which any one State,
without the cosopetatlon of the others,
can get rid of paper SPECULATION; nor can
! see much probability of any convene
Iional arrangement among the States by
which the system will be dispensed with.
fit is desirable to git'rid Of it. We should
seek an amendment Cf the constitution
Of the United Slams, and prohibit the
States from Incorporating banks. Until
this Is done &c It should be done) we
should so legislate as 10 guard the pub
lie against The evils OF the paper syslsm.
We cannot do this SO long as the banks
that furnish our circulation are beyond
our jurisdiction. l have now given the
reasons why / advocate reformed sys-
TEN II banking il Ohio, aud | have only
to ask lhose who differ with me 10 meet
the position | have taken by fair and
candid Argument. ,,
Il il claimed, that We have already
Law authorizing banking in Ohio, which is
sufficient for al purposes | have been
ceusLrsd for not taking firm stand IN
Favor Of that law, and against all amend.
ments. have never opposed i, and
have always been " ling thai its practi.
cab;liiv should be fairly tested. But !
wilI csndidIy admit have had many fears
ftnm the first, as to iisanswering the OK.
nectation Of those Who are really desiFous
q put into practical operation system
II banking. Should L prove otherwise,
M one would rejoice more than myself.
n Il claimed by capitalists, that tits not
ntscticable: or. in other words, its various
and multiplied Restrictions will not per
.,.;k .tha am N Faati5a siY nar3cant nnitheir I