Weekly North Carolina standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1850-1858, 1857-04-22
OBJ Stanbar1>
RALEIGH. SATURDAY, APRIL Is, 1857.
sDenosit and Distribution.

Deposit and Distribution.
The deposit act of 1886 passed the Senate with
only six dissenting votes and sent to the House
! This was what known as the Pet Bank act,
and it contained provision for depostng the sur
plus revenue with the States the States to issue
to the general government certJtcates J debt for
the amount received these certificates to be put on
the market and sold, if the States, when called on,
should not promptly refund. This certificate OF debt
feature was stricken out by the lIouse and the sim
pie deposite feature, pedsng the States to refund
the surplus when called for, substituted; and the
BILL as thus amended agreed to by the Senate
\ without a division. We have not had an opportu-
2 nifty Of examining the journals, as to make this
4statement directly from them; but friend, in the
correcness of whose information on the subject we
have entire confidence says this is Mr.. Benton,
lin his Thirty Years View,' gives the vote of the
#Senate on distribution, as urged by Mr. Clay, and
also refers to the six dissenting votes to the deposit
act; but he is not full and explicit as to the de-
tails of the latter act could wish him to have
been The Editor of the Jackson MisSissippian. who
has examined the record carefully states that the
deposit act was supported by Messrs. Buchanan
Tallmadgc Rives, Calhoun, King Of Alabama, Linn,
and other Democrats of the Senate; and by Messrs.
81 Boyd Bynum Hannegan Ingersoll, Pckens, Speight,
a Toucey and other Democrats of the House. Dem.
ocrats in the two Houses, equally sound and true,
voted against it and among them Messrs. Benton,
81 Wright Mckay, franklin Pierce, Droomgoole, " al
q ter Coles, and others. Henry A. Wise, then MEM
81 Der of the House, also voted against it; but Gov
Wise then in opposition to Gen. Jackson and
Sthe Democratic party. The deposit act passed the
EHouse Of Representatives by vote of So to S.
The Legislature of this State accepted the share to
(which North Carolina was entitled unanimously,
"a with the exception of DR.. Thomas Hall, of Edge
h combe, who entered his solemn protest against it.
e. Gen. Jackson, it is we'll known, approved the law
xwith reluctance and in his eighth and last annual
~ message he said
~ "The consequences apprehended, when the de-
post act of the last session received reluctant ap
q proval, have been measurably realized. Though an
act merely for deposit of the surplus moneys Of
the United States in the State Treasures, for safe
keeping, until they may be wanted for the service OF
the general government, has been extensively spo-
n ken of act to give the money to the several
& States: and thcv have been advised to use 1t
3 gift without regard to the means of refundng it
81 when called for. Such suggestion has doubtless
u been made without due consideration of the obi.
"a CATION of the deposit act, and without proper at
tenon to the various princpl and interests which
II affected by it. Tt is manifest that the law itself
ri cannot sanction such suggestion ard that, as it
# stands, the States have authority to
receive and use these deposits without intending to
Il return them, than any deposit bank any indivd-
q ua temporarily charged with the safe-keepng or
SE application of the public money, would now have
q for converting the to their private use without
k the consent and against the will of the government
"a But independently Of the violation of public faith
~ and moral obligation which are involved in this sug
M gestion when examined in reference to the terms
W the present deposit act it is believed that the
a sderations which should govern the future egisla
"a ton of Congress on this subject will be equally con
II elusive against the adoption of measure recog
q nizing the principles on which the suggestion ha:
been made"
Gen. jackson, it is seen, recognized wide differ
ence between deposit and distribution, properly un
derstood. He complains, in the same message, tina
A his views as advanced in 1929 and $780, had beer
S greatly misunderstood; )" and he then goes into
. OF the most powerful arguments ever made agains
M collecting revenue aoih riep To distri5utaon anG
against distribution itself He refers to and enlarges
& upon the serious difficulties attending an overflow
ing treasury, and which were experienced in 1895
and, admitting that the "experience and observa
tion of the last two years" had "operated partia
change" in his views " on this interesting subject,
IS he emphaticay declares, that the safest and sim
81 pest mode of obviating all the difficulties which
have been mentioned, is to collect only revenu,
enough to meet the wants of the government, anc
let the people keep the balance of the property il
their own hands, to be used for their own profit
Again he says, in the message speaking ofth.
deposit act Of 1886, 'this act although certainl,
designed to secure the safe.keeping of the public
revenue is not entirely free in its tendencies from
many OF the objections which apply to this princi
pic Oh distribution" He sees wide difference be-
tween the deposit act, properly understood and the
po'cy of distribution; yet he observes that the
'endencies' of the former are Objectionable. and
contribute toinjurious results These "tendenc;es,
ne then points out with much force. such as encour.