Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1857-12-25

7 q
t;=e. Ivoted against his bill with more than one
half of this side of the House, because understood
| that the bill of the gentleman from Bradley was
! compromise bill. believed Mr. Folks bill right in
good many of its features; but that the ndi-
vidual liability clause had been factiously placed
upon it by the opposition for the purpose of killing
it, and voted against it for that reason. The gem
tleman does not come within the scope Of my re-
/ mark
In regard to the time fixed by the bill in lieu for
resuming specie payments find it is placed on the
| Sth of January, 1859 never can consent 10 vote
| Tor a bill placing resumption far off as that At
the time the banks suspended, what was the reason
| given for taking that Il was because they
said they could not collect their dues in gold, or
| exchange, which is the same thing, at New York
| and New Orleans; and as l understand them, they
said if they could do that they could easily resume
| Ia sixty days, after New York and New Orleans
| should resume, But now New York and New Or
leans have both resumed, and 50 this excuse of
| banks falls the ground. Shall we, then, give
| them more latitude than they ask! Certainly not.
Now they can make exchange on New York and
New OIleans and there is 40 excuse for them. But
viii give you u reason why We might place their
resumption so far off as January, 1893
| 1t is matter of history that when the Bank of
England suspended in 1897, their circulation was
only nine millions. They did not resume until the
year 1911, and their circulation, at that time was
! twenty seven millions pounds sterling In 1911.
when they resumed, their stock was selling at two
hundred per cent. They had been able, by keeping
the gold in their vaults, 10 increase their business
SO as 10 do just three times much they did in
1871, and their stock had gone up one hundred per
| cent. SO il will be with banks if we permit
them to go on. Pass this bill and you will enable
the banks-the larger portion of them-to sell ex-
change at from five to per cent, and thus double
an uible their profits. If these are the reasons
why gentlemen want this bill passed let them come
| oft honestly and face the fact.
| Now, sir, could not these banks resume in sixty
days? l say they could We are now shipping our
produce largely to New Orleans; and in New Or
leans, can to day, buy exchange on New York at
Two per cent discount Now, could not the mer-
chant or banker of Nashville or Memphis convert
their bills into exchange there, and bring it here
and sell 1t at little more than par; could they
go to New York aud collect their debts in current
funds there, and buy gold at one-half per cent,
and bring it here at fair rate, instead of charging
ten per cent? They could. But no; instead of
this, the banks of Tennessee have nearly ruined US
They have reduced their circulation from nine mil
lions to lessthan three millions, and they will take
advantage of the pressure thus produced, and make
their prO6tsjust long as they can exchange upon
their specie, and keep out their circulation without
anything to support it.
But il is said to US, you are going to ruin the
country. This is nice in you bankers, after you
have already ruined the country yourselves; after
you have caused distress of every character an
description; after you have forced your merchants
to buy exchange at the highest rateafter the banks
have done all this it is certainly very becoming in
them to cry out On gentlemen, you are going to
ruin the country Thank God, the banks have done
their worst already. They have done every thing
they possibly could do in way of ruin they have
been contracting as rapidly as they could colec,
and having raised the price OF exchange to the
highest point, they say; Don't pass a stringent
bank BILL or you will ruin the country. No, Mr.
Speaker, after they have brought ruin upon US by
acting treacherous part, am unwilling to show
them favor. We have been attempting TO throw out
of circulation the five and ten dollar and smaller
notes, in order get specie in their place But this
bilin lieu does propose any such thing. 1t says
if they will accept the benefits of the above act,
within sixty days, &C. that, thereupon its prOvis
ions shall become part Of their charters, so far
applicable to them Sir, you might just as well 60 |
out and draw black mark upon the side wall of this
Capitol 1t ould be just as efectual the passage
Of this bill. 1t would do just much good this |
proposed restriction, requiring the banks to take up
their small notes 1t repeats the free banking law, |
and that is all there is in it.
Mr. RANDOLPH Did not the gentleman charge !
this side of the House with having INTRODUCED the |
bill IN lieu?
Mr. TURNER say it was voted for by thst side |
Mr. RANDOLPH, Then you mean to say that it |
came from this side.
Mr. BRAZELTON Cannot a man vote for pre-
position to amend, without being accounted an enc
my to the bill
Mr. TURNER, of Sumner. Yes, when the gen
tleman IN with the majority to assist them.
cannot vote for this bill in lieu, because it is not
intended to restrict the banks, but to just let them
90 on their own course, bringing revusiOn after
vulsion, and eliminating in general ruin.
Mr. G0LLADAY. Mr. Speaker, he gentleman
from Sumner represents me as having said 1 would
vote for Mr. Folks bill Sir, when l moved the
adoption of Mr. Folks BILL then said, could l sue
coed in attaching certain amendments, would vote
for it. But l also said that my mind not dis
tinctly made up, and am so T ported The gentle
from Maury said himself that his bill had taken
on much fine clothing, and learned so many for
egn airs when got the 10Th section that it was
a strange child in the house of its parent The
gentleman from Sumner says he voted
against Mr. Folks bill. Was that too restrictive for
him?
Mr. TURNER, of Sumner. Was not the twenty
dollar restriction in Mr. Folks bill when he introdu
,ed it? And was it ever stricken out
Mr. GOLLADAI. There was twenty dollar res.
friction in It.
Mr. POLK. The twenty dollar restriction was in
he bill. l found it Objectionable to some gentle
men on both sides of the House; and it will be re-
that on the second reading, we were
it, section by section, when came to
he clause which provided for the twenty dollar re-
triction, | moved to strike it out. The gentleman
rom Sumner voted against the motion.
Mr. TURNER, Of Sumner. Would the gentleman }
rom Wilson have voted for it
Mr. G0LLADAY. l have not entirely made up =,
ny mind; but Mr. Folks bill comes nearer to what
loud be my preference, than any other. at no j
eriod have l declared myself in favor of any bill
Ir Speaker, the gentleman from Sumner did not an
wer my question, SO that common man like my
elf could understand him. put the question, Can y
be Legislature take away the charter of a stock !,
auk without their consent? and want categori L
al answer. l am the gentleman from SIMMER Z
ill never say we have that power. IN
r,loiu hot ihah
uthOrze the Attorney General to proceed against
ne banks by scire tdcaS. But, now, if the gentle
IAN is correct, and the banks have forfeited their
larters, are they not dead by virtue of luw? If
}, how will you deal with them? By the law? If 4
e law has prescribed how they are 10 be wound up
it be enforced But if the law has done that %
zen say land think the honorable gentleman S
i'll agree with me- this Legislature has no power .
pass such law. The gentleman shifts around 0
Id says it is legal question. ask him when hal 10
courts decided that suspension was forfeiture 5g
the provisions of chat DILL would save them would Id
ey not entrench themselves behind it? The gen s.
eman set out with the proposition that the banks s.
e dead. Poor things! What do they mean to do ..
It'll them2 Do they mean to kill them little more
ad, or have they a proposition to revive them, and
ID reinvest them with life 2.
Mr. TURNER, Of Sumner. will ask the gentle
IN whether he believes they have forfeited their
arters?
Mr. GOLLADAY. lido not
Mr. TURNER. Did he not vote, lection by sec
u, for every section of Folks bill? VI
Mr. GOLLAOAY. l did not W
Mr. TURNER. Did you not vote for se7ersl Sec w.
ms? If
Mr. GOLDADAY. Probably.
Mr. TURNER. Then why vote for a section that Jew
nd not be properly placed upon it? 4
Mr. GOLLADAY. had little more sense than
It. Did you vote for every section of Folks VI
Mr. TURNER M ?
Mr. GOLLADAY. VIII you name one which you
not vote for?
,Ir TURNER Individual liability a
Mr. GOLLADAY. Who put that into the bill? .
'Ir TURNER. Some gentleman on this side
the gentleman from Wilson vote for Stanton's IT..
use? IN
,Ir G0LLADAY. did FL
,lr TURNER Could that be enforced?
,lr GOLLADAY. I knew what was voting for.
ant to know of my friend if he has not been an
ocate of individual liability?
lr TURNER. l will answer that by asking.
stands the gentleman from Wilson upon that?
TO BE CONTINUED
- z ~