Chapter VIII: Part 8

I lay before you, for your consideration and advice, a treaty of amity and commerce between the United States of America and the Republic of Mexico, concluded at Mexico on the 5th day of April, in the year 1831.

ANDREW JACKSON.

WASHINGTON, _February 29, 1832_. _To the Senate_:

In compliance with the resolution of the Senate of the 22d December, 1831, calling for certain information in relation to the trade between the United States and the British American colonies, I transmit herewith a report from the Secretary of the Treasury.

ANDREW JACKSON.

WASHINGTON, _February 29, 1832_. _To the Senate_:

In compliance with the resolution requesting the President of the United States to communicate to the Senate the considerations which in his opinion render it proper that the United States should be represented by a chargé d àffaires to the King of the Belgians at this time, I transmit herewith a report from the Secretary of State.

ANDREW JACKSON.

WASHINGTON, _March 1, 1832_. _To the House of Representatives_:

I submit to the consideration of Congress the accompanying report from the Secretary of State, showing the propriety of making some change by law in the duty on the red wines imported into the United States from Austria.

ANDREW JACKSON.

WASHINGTON, _March 1, 1832_. _To the Senate_:

Since my message yesterday in answer to the resolution of the Senate of the 22d December, 1831, calling for certain information in possession of the Executive relating to the trade between the United States and the British American colonies, I have received a report from the Secretary of State on the subject, which is also respectfully submitted to the Senate.

ANDREW JACKSON.

WASHINGTON, _March 2, 1832_. _To the Senate_:

In compliance with the resolution of the Senate of February 9, 1832, I have received the accompanying report from the Commissioner of the General Land Office, "on the extent and amount of business of the surveyor-general's district for Missouri, Illinois, and Arkansas, and the expediency of dividing the said district," which is respectfully submitted to the Senate.

ANDREW JACKSON.

WASHINGTON, _March 12, 1832_. _To the House of Representatives_:

In compliance with the resolution of the House of Representatives of the 7th instant, requesting the President of the United States to inform the House "whether any, and, if any, what, Indian tribes or nations who joined the enemy in the late war with Great Britain continue to receive annuities from the United States under treaties made prior to the war and not renewed since the peace," I transmit herewith a report from the Secretary of War.

ANDREW JACKSON.

WASHINGTON, _March 12, 1832_. _To the House of Representatives_:

I transmit herewith a report from the Secretary of War, containing the information called for by the resolution of the House of the 26th January last, in relation to the expenditures incurred by the execution of the act approved May 28, 1830, entitled "An act to provide for an exchange of lands with the Indians residing in any of the States or Territories, and for their removal west of the river Mississippi."

ANDREW JACKSON.

WASHINGTON, _March 12, 1832_. _To the Senate_:

I transmit herewith to the Senate a report from the Secretary of War, containing the information called for by the resolution of the Senate of the 12th of January last, in relation to the employment of agents among the Indians since the passage of the "act to provide for an exchange of lands with the Indians residing within any of the States or Territories, and for their removal west of the Mississippi," approved 28th May, 1830.

ANDREW JACKSON.

WASHINGTON, _March 14, 1832_. _To the Senate_:

I submit herewith, for the consideration of the Senate as to their advice and consent to the same, an agreement or convention lately made with a band of the Wyandot Indians residing within the limits of Ohio.

ANDREW JACKSON.

WASHINGTON, _March 16, 1832_. _To the House of Representatives_:

I transmit herewith a report from the Secretary of State, containing the information called for by the House of Representatives of the 24th February last, in relation to the situation of the Government of the Republic of Colombia and the state of our diplomatic relations with it.

ANDREW JACKSON.

WASHINGTON, _March 26, 1832_. _To the Senate of the United States_:

I transmit to the Senate, for their advice and consent as to the ratification of the same, a treaty concluded at this city on the 24th instant between the United States and the Creek tribe of Indians.

ANDREW JACKSON.

WASHINGTON, _March 29, 1832_. _To the Senate_:

In compliance with the resolution requesting the "President to inform the Senate whether any, and, if any, what, communications have passed between the executive department of the United States and the executive or legislative department of the State of Maine relative to the northeastern boundary, and whether any proposition has been made by either that the boundary designated by the King of the Netherlands shall be established for a _consideration_ to be paid to Maine, and, if so, what consideration was proposed, so far as the same may not be inconsistent with the public interest," I transmit herewith a report from the Secretary of State.

ANDREW JACKSON.

WASHINGTON, _April 2, 1832_. _To the House of Representatives_:

In compliance with the resolution of the House of the 17th of the last month, requesting the President to obtain and communicate to it as soon as may be practicable information "whether possession has been taken of any part of the territory of the United States on the Pacific Ocean by the subjects of any foreign power, with any other information relative to the condition and character of the said territory," I transmit herewith reports from the Secretaries of the State and Navy Departments, from which it will appear that there is no satisfactory information on the subject now in possession of the Executive, and that none is likely to be obtained but at an expense which can not be incurred without the authority of Congress.

ANDREW JACKSON.

WASHINGTON, _April 4, 1832_. _To the Congress of the United States_:

I transmit herewith to Congress a report from the Secretary of State, showing the circumstances under which refuge was given on board the United States ship _St. Louis_, Captain Sloat, to the vice-president of the Republic of Peru and to General Miller, and the expense thereby incurred by Captain Sloat, for the payment of which there is no fund applicable to the case.

I recommend to Congress that provision be made for this and similar cases that may occur in future.

ANDREW JACKSON.

WASHINGTON, _April 4, 1832_. _To the Congress of the United States_:

I submit herewith to the consideration of Congress a report from the Secretary of State, showing the necessity of providing additional accommodations for the Patent Office, and proposing the purchase of a suitable building, which has been offered to the Government for the purpose.

ANDREW JACKSON.

WASHINGTON, _April 4, 1832_. _To the Senate_:

I transmit herewith a report from the Secretary of State, made in compliance with the resolution of the Senate which requests the President to communicate to the Senate, if not incompatible with the public interest, that portion of the correspondence between Mr. McLane, while minister at London, and the Secretary of State, and also between our said minister and the British Government, respecting the colonial trade, which may not have been communicated with his message to Congress of the 3d January, 1831.

ANDREW JACKSON.

WASHINGTON, _April 6, 1832_. _To the Senate_:

I nominate William P. Zantzinger, of Pennsylvania, to be a purser in the Navy of the United States.

In submitting the above nomination it is deemed proper to give some detail of the peculiar circumstances of the case. Mr. Zantzinger was formerly a purser, and after a trial by a court-martial in January, 1830, was dismissed from the naval service. The record is inclosed, marked A. In July, 1830, verbally, afterwards in writing early in 1831, he applied for restoration to his former situation and date on the assumed ground that the proceedings in his trial were illegal and void, and he fortified himself by the many numerous certificates and opinions herewith forwarded, marked B.

These have been carefully examined, and though failing to convince me of the correctness of his position in respect to the nullity of those proceedings, I am satisfied that under all the circumstances of the case a mitigation of his sentence can be justified on both public and personal grounds.

With the loss of his former date and of his pay since his dismission, I have therefore submitted his nomination to take effect like an original entry into the service, only from its confirmation by the Senate. There is now one vacancy in the corps of pursers.

ANDREW JACKSON.

WASHINGTON, _April 9, 1832_. _To the Senate_:

In compliance with the resolution requesting the President to transmit to the Senate "Lord Aberdeen's letter in answer to Mr. Barbour's of the 27th November, 1828, and also so much of a letter of the 22d April, 1831, from Mr. McLane to Mr. Van Buren as relates to the proposed duty on cotton," I transmit herewith a report from the Secretary of State, communicating copies of the letters referred to.

ANDREW JACKSON.

WASHINGTON, _April 13, 1832_. _To the Congress of the United States_:

Approving the suggestions expressed by the Secretary of State in regard to the propriety of exempting Portuguese vessels entering the ports of the United States from the payment of the duties on tonnage, in consequence of a like exemption being extended to those of the United States, I transmit herewith, for the consideration of Congress, his letter on the subject.

ANDREW JACKSON.

WASHINGTON, _April 18, 1832_. _To the Senate_:

I transmit herewith a report[14] from the Secretary of the Treasury, containing the information called for by the resolution of the Senate of the 3d instant.

ANDREW JACKSON.

[Footnote 14: Relating to trade with the European possessions of Great Britain for the year ending September 30, 1831.]

WASHINGTON, _April 19, 1832_. _To the Senate and House of Representatives_:

I transmit herewith printed copies of each of the treaties between the United States and the Indian tribes that have been ratified during the present session of Congress.

ANDREW JACKSON.

WASHINGTON, _April 20, 1832_. _To the Senate_:

In compliance with the resolution of the Senate of the 9th instant, requesting the President "to communicate to the Senate all the instructions given by this Government to our ministers to Great Britain and all the correspondence of our ministers on the subject of the colonial and West India trade since the 3d of March, 1825, not heretofore communicated, so far as the public interest will, in his judgment, permit," I transmit herewith a report from the Secretary of State, containing the information required.

ANDREW JACKSON.

WASHINGTON, _April 23, 1832_. _To the Senate and House of Representatives_:

I transmit herewith, for the consideration of Congress, a report from the Secretary of State, suggesting the propriety of passing a law making it criminal within the limits of the United States to counterfeit the current coin of any foreign nation.

ANDREW JACKSON.

WASHINGTON, _April 23, 1832_. _To the Senate_:

I transmit herewith a report from the Secretary of the Treasury, containing the information called for by the resolution of the 26th of March last, in which the President is requested to communicate to the Senate--

First. The total amount of public lands belonging to the United States which remain unsold, whether the Indian title thereon has been extinguished or not, as far as that amount can be ascertained from surveys actually made or by estimate, and distinguishing the States and Territories respectively in which it is situated, and the quantity in each.

Second. The amount on which, the Indian title has been extinguished and the sums paid for the extinction thereof, and the amount on which the Indian title remains to be extinguished.

Third. The amount which has been granted by Congress from time to time in the several States and Territories, distinguishing between them and stating the purposes for which the grants were respectively made, and the amount of lands granted or money paid in satisfaction of Virginia land claims.

Fourth. The amount which has been heretofore sold by the United States, distinguishing between the States and Territories in which it is situated.

Fifth. The amount which has been paid to France, Spain, and Georgia for the public lands acquired from them respectively, including the amount which has been paid to purchasers from Georgia to quiet or in satisfaction of their claims, and the amount paid to the Indians to extinguish their title within the limits of Georgia.

Sixth. The total expense of administering the public domain since the declaration of independence, including all charges for surveying, for land offices, and other disbursements, and exhibiting the net amount which has been realized in the Treasury from that source.

ANDREW JACKSON.

WASHINGTON, _May 1, 1832_. _To the House of Representatives_:

I transmit herewith, for the use of the House, a printed copy of two treaties lately ratified between the United States of America and the United Mexican States.

ANDREW JACKSON.

(The same message was sent to the Senate.)

WASHINGTON, _May 2,1832_. _To the House of Representatives_:

In compliance with a resolution of the House of the 1st instant, in relation to the imprisonment[15] of Samuel G. Howe, I transmit herewith a report from the Secretary of State, by which it appears that no information on the subject has yet reached the Department of State but what is contained in the public newspapers.

ANDREW JACKSON.

[Footnote 15: In Berlin, Prussia.]

WASHINGTON, _May 29, 1832_. _To the House of Representatives_:

In compliance with the resolution of the House of the 18th instant, I transmit herewith a report from the Secretary of State, with copies of the several instructions under which the recent treaty of indemnity with Denmark was negotiated, and also of the other papers relating to the negotiation required by the resolution.

ANDREW JACKSON.

WASHINGTON, _May 29, 1832_. _To the House of Representatives_:

In compliance with the resolution of the House of the 27th of February last, requesting copies of the instructions and correspondence relating to the negotiation of the treaty with the Sublime Porte, together with those of the negotiations preceding the treaty from the year 1819, I transmit herewith a report from the Secretary of State, with the papers required.

ANDREW JACKSON.

WASHINGTON, _June 11, 1832_. _To the Senate_:

I renominate Samuel Gwin to be register of the land office at Clinton, in the State of Mississippi.

In nominating Mr. Gwin to this office again it is proper to state to the Senate that I do so in compliance with the request of a number of the most respectable citizens of the State of Mississippi and with that of one of the Senators from the same State. The letters expressing this request are herewith respectfully inclosed for the consideration of the Senate. It will be perceived that they bear the fullest testimony to the fitness of Mr. Gwin for the office, and evince a strong desire that he should be continued in it.

Under these circumstances, and possessing myself a personal knowledge of his integrity and fitness and of the claims which his faithful and patriotic services give him upon the Government, I deem it an act of justice to nominate him again, not doubting that the Senate will embrace with cheerfulness an opportunity, with fuller information, to reconsider their former vote upon his nomination.

ANDREW JACKSON.

WASHINGTON, _June 25, 1832_. _To the Senate of the United States_:

I herewith transmit to the Senate a report from the Secretary of State, on the subject of the abolition of discriminating duties on the tonnage of Spanish vessels. As it requires legislative enactment, I recommend it to the early attention of Congress.

ANDREW JACKSON.

(The same message was sent to the House of Representatives.)

WASHINGTON CITY, _July 12, 1832_. _The Speaker of the House of Representatives_.

SIR: In compliance with the resolution of the House of Representatives passed this day, requesting the President of the United States "to lay before the House copies of the instructions given to the commander of the frigate _Potomac_ previous to and since the departure of that ship from the island of Sumatra, and copies of such letters as may have been received from said commander after his arrival at Quallah Battoo, except such parts as may in his judgment require secrecy," I forward copies of the two letters of instructions to Captain Downes in relation to the piratical plunder and murder of our citizens at Quallah Battoo, on the coast of Sumatra, detailing his proceedings.

The instructions, with the papers annexed, are all that have been given bearing on this subject, and although parts of them do not relate materially to the supposed object of the resolution, yet it has been deemed expedient to omit nothing contained in the originals.

The letter and report from Captain Downes which are herewith furnished are all yet received from him bearing upon his proceedings at Quallah Battoo; but as further intelligence may hereafter be communicated by him, I send them for the information of the House, submitting, however, in justice to that officer, that their contents should not be published until he can enjoy a further opportunity of giving more full explanations of all the circumstances under which he conducted.

ANDREW JACKSON.

WASHINGTON, _July 14, 1832_. _To the House of Representatives of the United States_:

In compliance with the resolution of the House of the 17th of February last, requesting copies of the instructions and correspondence relative to the treaty with the Sublime Porte, together with those of the negotiations preceding that treaty, from the year 1829, I transmit herewith a supplemental report from the Secretary of State, with the papers accompanying the same.

ANDREW JACKSON.

VETO MESSAGE.

WASHINGTON, _July 10, 1832_. _To the Senate_:

The bill "to modify and continue" the act entitled "An act to incorporate the subscribers to the Bank of the United States" was presented to me on the 4th July instant. Having considered it with that solemn regard to the principles of the Constitution which the day was calculated to inspire, and come to the conclusion that it ought not to become a law, I herewith return it to the Senate, in which it originated, with my objections.

A bank of the United States is in many respects convenient for the Government and useful to the people. Entertaining this opinion, and deeply impressed with the belief that some of the powers and privileges possessed by the existing bank are unauthorized by the Constitution, subversive of the rights of the States, and dangerous to the liberties of the people, I felt it my duty at an early period of my Administration to call the attention of Congress to the practicability of organizing an institution combining all its advantages and obviating these objections. I sincerely regret that in the act before me I can perceive none of those modifications of the bank charter which are necessary, in my opinion, to make it compatible with justice, with sound policy, or with the Constitution of our country.

The present corporate body, denominated the president, directors, and company of the Bank of the United States, will have existed at the time this act is intended to take effect twenty years. It enjoys an exclusive privilege of banking under the authority of the General Government, a monopoly of its favor and support, and, as a necessary consequence, almost a monopoly of the foreign and domestic exchange. The powers, privileges, and favors bestowed upon it in the original charter, by increasing the value of the stock far above its par value, operated as a gratuity of many millions to the stockholders.

An apology may be found for the failure to guard against this result in the consideration that the effect of the original act of incorporation could not be certainly foreseen at the time of its passage. The act before me proposes another gratuity to the holders of the same stock, and in many cases to the same men, of at least seven millions more. This donation finds no apology in any uncertainty as to the effect of the act. On all hands it is conceded that its passage will increase at least 20 or 30 per cent more the market price of the stock, subject to the payment of the annuity of $200,000 per year secured by the act, thus adding in a moment one-fourth to its par value. It is not our own citizens only who are to receive the bounty of our Government. More than eight millions of the stock of this bank are held by foreigners. By this act the American Republic proposes virtually to make them a present of some millions of dollars. For these gratuities to foreigners and to some of our own opulent citizens the act secures no equivalent whatever. They are the certain gains of the present stockholders under the operation of this act, after making full allowance for the payment of the bonus.

Every monopoly and all exclusive privileges are granted at the expense of the public, which ought to receive a fair equivalent. The many millions which this act proposes to bestow on the stockholders of the existing bank must come directly or indirectly out of the earnings of the American people. It is due to them, therefore, if their Government sell monopolies and exclusive privileges, that they should at least exact for them as much as they are worth in open market. The value of the monopoly in this case may be correctly ascertained. The twenty-eight millions of stock would probably be at an advance of 50 per cent, and command in market at least $42,000,000, subject to the payment of the present bonus. The present value of the monopoly, therefore, is $17,000,000, and this the act proposes to sell for three millions, payable in fifteen annual installments of $200,000 each.

It is not conceivable how the present stockholders can have any claim to the special favor of the Government. The present corporation has enjoyed its monopoly during the period stipulated in the original contract. If we must have such a corporation, why should not the Government sell out the whole stock and thus secure to the people the full market value of the privileges granted? Why should not Congress create and sell twenty-eight millions of stock, incorporating the purchasers with all the powers and privileges secured in this act and putting the premium upon the sales into the Treasury?

But this act does not permit competition in the purchase of this monopoly. It seems to be predicated on the erroneous idea that the present stockholders have a prescriptive right not only to the favor but to the bounty of Government. It appears that more than a fourth part of the stock is held by foreigners and the residue is held by a few hundred of our own citizens, chiefly of the richest class. For their benefit does this act exclude the whole American people from competition in the purchase of this monopoly and dispose of it for many millions less than it is worth. This seems the less excusable because some of our citizens not now stockholders petitioned that the door of competition might be opened, and offered to take a charter on terms much more favorable to the Government and country.

But this proposition, although made by men whose aggregate wealth is believed to be equal to all the private stock in the existing bank, has been set aside, and the bounty of our Government is proposed to be again bestowed on the few who have been fortunate enough to secure the stock and at this moment wield the power of the existing institution. I can not perceive the justice or policy of this course. If our Government must sell monopolies, it would seem to be its duty to take nothing less than their full value, and if gratuities must be made once in fifteen or twenty years let them not be bestowed on the subjects of a foreign government nor upon a designated and favored class of men in our own country. It is but justice and good policy, as far as the nature of the case will admit, to confine our favors to our own fellow citizens, and let each in his turn enjoy an opportunity to profit by our bounty. In the bearings of the act before me upon these points I find ample reasons why it should not become a law.

It has been urged as an argument in favor of rechartering the present bank that the calling in its loans will produce great embarrassment and distress. The time allowed to close its concerns is ample, and if it has been well managed its pressure will be light, and heavy only in case its management has been bad. If, therefore, it shall produce distress, the fault will be its own, and it would furnish a reason against renewing a power which has been so obviously abused. But will there ever be a time when this reason will be less powerful? To acknowledge its force is to admit that the bank ought to be perpetual, and as a consequence the present stockholders and those inheriting their rights as successors be established a privileged order, clothed both with great political power and enjoying immense pecuniary advantages from their connection with the Government.

The modifications of the existing charter proposed by this act are not such, in my view, as make it consistent with the rights of the States or the liberties of the people. The qualification of the right of the bank to hold real estate, the limitation of its power to establish branches, and the power reserved to Congress to forbid the circulation of small notes are restrictions comparatively of little value or importance. All the objectionable principles of the existing corporation, and most of its odious features, are retained without alleviation.

The fourth section provides "that the notes or bills of the said corporation, although the same be, on the faces thereof, respectively made payable at one place only, shall nevertheless be received by the said corporation at the bank or at any of the offices of discount and deposit thereof if tendered in liquidation or payment of any balance or balances due to said corporation or to such office of discount and deposit from any other incorporated bank." This provision secures to the State banks a legal privilege in the Bank of the United States which is withheld from all private citizens. If a State bank in Philadelphia owe the Bank of the United States and have notes issued by the St. Louis branch, it can pay the debt with those notes, but if a merchant, mechanic, or other private citizen be in like circumstances he can not by law pay his debt with those notes, but must sell them at a discount or send them to St. Louis to be cashed. This boon conceded to the State banks, though not unjust in itself, is most odious because it does not measure out equal justice to the high and the low, the rich and the poor. To the extent of its practical effect it is a bond of union among the banking establishments of the nation, erecting them into an interest separate from that of the people, and its necessary tendency is to unite the Bank of the United States and the State banks in any measure which may be thought conducive to their common interest.

The ninth section of the act recognizes principles of worse tendency than any provision of the present charter.

It enacts that "the cashier of the bank shall annually report to the Secretary of the Treasury the names of all stockholders who are not resident citizens of the United States, and on the application of the treasurer of any State shall make out and transmit to such treasurer a list of stockholders residing in or citizens of such State, with the amount of stock owned by each." Although this provision, taken in connection with a decision of the Supreme Court, surrenders, by its silence, the right of the States to tax the banking institutions created by this corporation under the name of branches throughout the Union, it is evidently intended to be construed as a concession of their right to tax that portion of the stock which may be held by their own citizens and residents. In this light, if the act becomes a law, it will be understood by the States, who will probably proceed to levy a tax equal to that paid upon the stock of banks incorporated by themselves. In some States that tax is now 1 per cent, either on the capital or on the shares, and that may be assumed as the amount which all citizen or resident stockholders would be taxed under the operation of this act. As it is only the stock _held_ in the States and not that _employed_ within them which would be subject to taxation, and as the names of foreign stockholders are not to be reported to the treasurers of the States, it is obvious that the stock held by them will be exempt from this burden. Their annual profits will therefore be 1 per cent more than the citizen stockholders, and as the annual dividends of the bank may be safely estimated at 7 per cent, the stock will be worth 10 or 15 per cent more to foreigners than to citizens of the United States. To appreciate the effects which this state of things will produce, we must take a brief review of the operations and present condition of the Bank of the United States.

By documents submitted to Congress at the present session it appears that on the 1st of January, 1832, of the twenty-eight millions of private stock in the corporation, $8,405,500 were held by foreigners, mostly of Great Britain. The amount of stock held in the nine Western and Southwestern States is $140,200, and in the four Southern States is $5,623,100, and in the Middle and Eastern States is about $13,522,000. The profits of the bank in 1831, as shown in a statement to Congress, were about $3,455,598; of this there accrued in the nine Western States about $1,640,048; in the four Southern States about $352,507, and in the Middle and Eastern States about $1,463,041. As little stock is held in the West, it is obvious that the debt of the people in that section to the bank is principally a debt to the Eastern and foreign stockholders; that the interest they pay upon it is carried into the Eastern States and into Europe, and that it is a burden upon their industry and a drain of their currency, which no country can bear without inconvenience and occasional distress. To meet this burden and equalize the exchange operations of the bank, the amount of specie drawn from those States through its branches within the last two years, as shown by its official reports, was about $6,000,000. More than half a million of this amount does not stop in the Eastern States, but passes on to Europe to pay the dividends of the foreign stockholders. In the principle of taxation recognized by this act the Western States find no adequate compensation for this perpetual burden on their industry and drain of their currency. The branch bank at Mobile made last year $95,140, yet under the provisions of this act the State of Alabama can raise no revenue from these profitable operations, because not a share of the stock is held by any of her citizens. Mississippi and Missouri are in the same condition in relation to the branches at Natchez and St. Louis, and such, in a greater or less degree, is the condition of every Western State. The tendency of the plan of taxation which this act proposes will be to place the whole United States in the same relation to foreign countries which the Western States now bear to the Eastern. When by a tax on resident stockholders the stock of this bank is made worth 10 or 15 per cent more to foreigners than to residents, most of it will inevitably leave the country.

Thus will this provision in its practical effect deprive the Eastern as well as the Southern and Western States of the means of raising a revenue from the extension of business and great profits of this institution. It will make the American people debtors to aliens in nearly the whole amount due to this bank, and send across the Atlantic from two to five millions of specie every year to pay the bank dividends.

In another of its bearings this provision is fraught with danger. Of the twenty-five directors of this bank five are chosen by the Government and twenty by the citizen stockholders. From all voice in these elections the foreign stockholders are excluded by the charter. In proportion, therefore, as the stock is transferred to foreign holders the extent of suffrage in the choice of directors is curtailed. Already is almost a third of the stock in foreign hands and not represented in elections. It is constantly passing out of the country, and this act will accelerate its departure. The entire control of the institution would necessarily fall into the hands of a few citizen stockholders, and the ease with which the object would be accomplished would be a temptation to designing men to secure that control in their own hands by monopolizing the remaining stock. There is danger that a president and directors would then be able to elect themselves from year to year, and without responsibility or control manage the whole concerns of the bank during the existence of its charter. It is easy to conceive that great evils to our country and its institutions might flow from such a concentration of power in the hands of a few men irresponsible to the people.

Is there no danger to our liberty and independence in a bank that in its nature has so little to bind it to our country? The president of the bank has told us that most of the State banks exist by its forbearance. Should its influence become concentered, as it may under the operation of such an act as this, in the hands of a self-elected directory whose interests are identified with those of the foreign stockholders, will there not be cause to tremble for the purity of our elections in peace and for the independence of our country in war? Their power would be great whenever they might choose to exert it; but if this monopoly were regularly renewed every fifteen or twenty years on terms proposed by themselves, they might seldom in peace put forth their strength to influence elections or control the affairs of the nation. But if any private citizen or public functionary should interpose to curtail its powers or prevent a renewal of its privileges, it can not be doubted that he would be made to feel its influence.

Should the stock of the bank principally pass into the hands of the subjects of a foreign country, and we should unfortunately become involved in a war with that country, what would be our condition? Of the course which would be pursued by a bank almost wholly owned by the subjects of a foreign power, and managed by those whose interests, if not affections, would run in the same direction there can be no doubt. All its operations within would be in aid of the hostile fleets and armies without. Controlling our currency, receiving our public moneys, and holding thousands of our citizens in dependence, it would be more formidable and dangerous than the naval and military power of the enemy.

If we must have a bank with private stockholders, every consideration of sound policy and every impulse of American feeling admonishes that it should be _purely American_. Its stockholders should be composed exclusively of our own citizens, who at least ought to be friendly to our Government and willing to support it in times of difficulty and danger. So abundant is domestic capital that competition in subscribing for the stock of local banks has recently led almost to riots. To a bank exclusively of American stockholders, possessing the powers and privileges granted by this act, subscriptions for $200,000,000 could be readily obtained. Instead of sending abroad the stock of the bank in which the Government must deposit its funds and on which it must rely to sustain its credit in times of emergency, it would rather seem to be expedient to prohibit its sale to aliens under penalty of absolute forfeiture.

It is maintained by the advocates of the bank that its constitutionality in all its features ought to be considered as settled by precedent and by the decision of the Supreme Court. To this conclusion I can not assent. Mere precedent is a dangerous source of authority, and should not be regarded as deciding questions of constitutional power except where the acquiescence of the people and the States can be considered as well settled. So far from this being the case on this subject, an argument against the bank might be based on precedent. One Congress, in 1791, decided in favor of a bank; another, in 1811, decided against it. One Congress, in 1815, decided against a bank; another, in 1816, decided in its favor. Prior to the present Congress, therefore, the precedents drawn from that source were equal. If we resort to the States, the expressions of legislative, judicial, and executive opinions against the bank have been probably to those in its favor as 4 to 1. There is nothing in precedent, therefore, which, if its authority were admitted, ought to weigh in favor of the act before me.

If the opinion of the Supreme Court covered the whole ground of this act, it ought not to control the coordinate authorities of this Government. The Congress, the Executive, and the Court must each for itself be guided by its own opinion of the Constitution. Each public officer who takes an oath to support the Constitution swears that he will support it as he understands it, and not as it is understood by others. It is as much the duty of the House of Representatives, of the Senate, and of the President to decide upon the constitutionality of any bill or resolution which may be presented to them for passage or approval as it is of the supreme judges when it may be brought before them for judicial decision. The opinion of the judges has no more authority over Congress than the opinion of Congress has over the judges, and on that point the President is independent of both. The authority of the Supreme Court must not, therefore, be permitted to control the Congress or the Executive when acting in their legislative capacities, but to have only such influence as the force of their reasoning may deserve.

But in the case relied upon the Supreme Court have not decided that all the features of this corporation are compatible with the Constitution. It is true that the court have said that the law incorporating the bank is a constitutional exercise of power by Congress; but taking into view the whole opinion of the court and the reasoning by which they have come to that conclusion, I understand them to have decided that inasmuch as a bank is an appropriate means for carrying into effect the enumerated powers of the General Government, therefore the law incorporating it is in accordance with that provision of the Constitution which declares that Congress shall have power "to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying those powers into execution." Having satisfied themselves that the word "_necessary_" in the Constitution means "_needful," "requisite," "essential," "conducive to_," and that "a bank" is a convenient, a useful, and essential instrument in the prosecution of the Government's "fiscal operations," they conclude that to "use one must be within the discretion of Congress" and that "the act to incorporate the Bank of the United States is a law made in pursuance of the Constitution;" "but," say they, "_where the law is not prohibited and is really calculated to effect any of the objects intrusted to the Government, to undertake here to inquire into the degree of its necessity would be to pass the line which circumscribes the judicial department and to tread on legislative ground_."

The principle here affirmed is that the "degree of its necessity," involving all the details of a banking institution, is a question exclusively for legislative consideration. A bank is constitutional, but it is the province of the Legislature to determine whether this or that particular power, privilege, or exemption is "necessary and proper" to enable the bank to discharge its duties to the Government, and from their decision there is no appeal to the courts of justice. Under the decision of the Supreme Court, therefore, it is the exclusive province of Congress and the President to decide whether the particular features of this act are _necessary_ and _proper_ in order to enable the bank to perform conveniently and efficiently the public duties assigned to it as a fiscal agent, and therefore constitutional, or _unnecessary_ and _improper_, and therefore unconstitutional.

Without commenting on the general principle affirmed by the Supreme Court, let us examine the details of this act in accordance with the rule of legislative action which they have laid down. It will be found that many of the powers and privileges conferred on it can not be supposed necessary for the purpose for which it is proposed to be created, and are not, therefore, means necessary to attain the end in view, and consequently not justified by the Constitution.

The original act of incorporation, section 21, enacts "that no other bank shall be established by any future law of the United States during the continuance of the corporation hereby created, for which the faith of the United States is hereby pledged: _Provided_, Congress may renew existing charters for banks within the District of Columbia not increasing the capital thereof, and may also establish any other bank or banks in said District with capitals not exceeding in the whole $6,000,000 if they shall deem it expedient." This provision is continued in force by the act before me fifteen years from the 3d of March, 1836.

If Congress possessed the power to establish one bank, they had power to establish more than one if in their opinion two or more banks had been "necessary" to facilitate the execution of the powers delegated to them in the Constitution. If they possessed the power to establish a second bank, it was a power derived from the Constitution to be exercised from time to time, and at any time when the interests of the country or the emergencies of the Government might make it expedient. It was possessed by one Congress as well as another, and by all Congresses alike, and alike at every session. But the Congress of 1816 have taken it away from their successors for twenty years, and the Congress of 1832 proposes to abolish it for fifteen years more. It can not be "_necessary_" or "_proper_" for Congress to barter away or divest themselves of any of the powers vested in them by the Constitution to be exercised for the public good. It is not "_necessary_" to the efficiency of the bank, nor is it "_proper_" in relation to themselves and their successors. They may _properly_ use the discretion vested in them, but they may not limit the discretion of their successors. This restriction on themselves and grant of a monopoly to the bank is therefore unconstitutional.

In another point of view this provision is a palpable attempt to amend the Constitution by an act of legislation. The Constitution declares that "the Congress shall have power to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever" over the District of Columbia. Its constitutional power, therefore, to establish banks in the District of Columbia and increase their capital at will is unlimited and uncontrollable by any other power than that which gave authority to the Constitution. Yet this act declares that Congress shall _not_ increase the capital of existing banks, nor create other banks with capitals exceeding in the whole $6,000,000. The Constitution declares that Congress _shall_ have power to exercise exclusive legislation over this District "_in all cases whatsoever_," and this act declares they shall not. Which is the supreme law of the land? This provision can not be "_necessary_" or "_proper_" or _constitutional_ unless the absurdity be admitted that whenever it be "necessary and proper" in the opinion of Congress they have a right to barter away one portion of the powers vested in them by the Constitution as a means of executing the rest.

On two subjects only does the Constitution recognize in Congress the power to grant exclusive privileges or monopolies. It declares that "Congress shall have power to promote the progress of science and useful arts by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries." Out of this express delegation of power have grown our laws of patents and copyrights. As the Constitution expressly delegates to Congress the power to grant exclusive privileges in these cases as the means of executing the substantive power "to promote the progress of science and useful arts," it is consistent with the fair rules of construction to conclude that such a power was not intended to be granted as a means of accomplishing any other end. On every other subject which comes within the scope of Congressional power there is an ever-living discretion in the use of proper means, which can not be restricted or abolished without an amendment of the Constitution. Every act of Congress, therefore, which attempts by grants of monopolies or sale of exclusive privileges for a limited time, or a time without limit, to restrict or extinguish its own discretion in the choice of means to execute its delegated powers is equivalent to a legislative amendment of the Constitution, and palpably unconstitutional.

This act authorizes and encourages transfers of its stock to foreigners and grants them an exemption from all State and national taxation. So far from being "_necessary and proper_" that the bank should possess this power to make it a safe and efficient agent of the Government in its fiscal operations, it is calculated to convert the Bank of the United States into a foreign bank, to impoverish our people in time of peace, to disseminate a foreign influence through every section of the Republic, and in war to endanger our independence.

The several States reserved the power at the formation of the Constitution to regulate and control titles and transfers of real property, and most, if not all, of them have laws disqualifying aliens from acquiring or holding lands within their limits. But this act, in disregard of the undoubted right of the States to prescribe such disqualifications, gives to aliens stockholders in this bank an interest and title, as members of the corporation, to all the real property it may acquire within any of the States of this Union. This privilege granted to aliens is not "_necessary_" to enable the bank to perform its public duties, nor in any sense "_proper_" because it is vitally subversive of the rights of the States.

The Government of the United States have no constitutional power to purchase lands within the States except "for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings," and even for these objects only "by the consent of the legislature of the State in which the same shall be." By making themselves stockholders in the bank and granting to the corporation the power to purchase lands for other purposes they assume a power not granted in the Constitution and grant to others what they do not themselves possess. It is not _necessary_ to the receiving, safe-keeping, or transmission of the funds of the Government that the bank should possess this power, and it is not _proper_ that Congress should thus enlarge the powers delegated to them in the Constitution.

The old Bank of the United States possessed a capital of only $11,000,000, which was found fully sufficient to enable it with dispatch and safety to perform all the functions required of it by the Government. The capital of the present bank is $35,000,000--at least twenty-four more than experience has proved to be _necessary_ to enable a bank to perform its public functions. The public debt which existed during the period of the old bank and on the establishment of the new has been nearly paid off, and our revenue will soon be reduced. This increase of capital is therefore not for public but for private purposes.

The Government is the only "_proper_" judge where its agents should reside and keep their offices, because it best knows where their presence will be "_necessary_." It can not, therefore, be "_necessary_" or "_proper_" to authorize the bank to locate branches where it pleases to perform the public service, without consulting the Government, and contrary to its will. The principle laid down by the Supreme Court concedes that Congress can not establish a bank for purposes of private speculation and gain, but only as a means of executing the delegated powers of the General Government. By the same principle a branch bank can not constitutionally be established for other than public purposes. The power which this act gives to establish two branches in any State, without the injunction or request of the Government and for other than public purposes, is not "_necessary_" to the due _execution_ of the powers delegated to Congress.

The bonus which is exacted from the bank is a confession upon the face of the act that the powers granted by it are greater than are "_necessary_" to its character of a fiscal agent. The Government does not tax its officers and agents for the privilege of serving it. The bonus of a million and a half required by the original charter and that of three millions proposed by this act are not exacted for the privilege of giving "the necessary facilities for transferring the public funds from place to place within the United States or the Territories thereof, and for distributing the same in payment of the public creditors without charging commission or claiming allowance on account of the difference of exchange," as required by the act of incorporation, but for something more beneficial to the stockholders. The original act declares that it (the bonus) is granted "in consideration of the exclusive privileges and benefits conferred by this act upon the said bank," and the act before me declares it to be "in consideration of the exclusive benefits and privileges continued by this act to the said corporation for fifteen years, as aforesaid." It is therefore for "exclusive privileges and benefits" conferred for their own use and emolument, and not for the advantage of the Government, that a bonus is exacted. These surplus powers for which the bank is required to pay can not surely be "_necessary_" to make it the fiscal agent of the Treasury. If they were, the exaction of a bonus for them would not be "_proper_."

It is maintained by some that the bank is a means of executing the constitutional power "to coin money and regulate the value thereof." Congress have established a mint to coin money and passed laws to regulate the value thereof. The money so coined, with its value so regulated, and such foreign coins as Congress may adopt are the only currency known to the Constitution. But if they have other power to regulate the currency, it was conferred to be exercised by themselves, and not to be transferred to a corporation. If the bank be established for that purpose, with a charter unalterable without its consent, Congress have parted with their power for a term of years, during which the Constitution is a dead letter. It is neither necessary nor proper to transfer its legislative power to such a bank, and therefore unconstitutional.

By its silence, considered in connection with the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of McCulloch against the State of Maryland, this act takes from the States the power to tax a portion of the banking business carried on within their limits, in subversion of one of the strongest barriers which secured them against Federal encroachments. Banking, like farming, manufacturing, or any other occupation or profession, is _a business_, the right to follow which is not originally derived from the laws. Every citizen and every company of citizens in all of our States possessed the right until the State legislatures deemed it good policy to prohibit private banking by law. If the prohibitory State laws were now repealed, every citizen would again possess the right. The State banks are a qualified restoration of the right which has been taken away by the laws against banking, guarded by such provisions and limitations as in the opinion of the State legislatures the public interest requires. These corporations, unless there be an exemption in their charter, are, like private bankers and banking companies, subject to State taxation. The manner in which these taxes shall be laid depends wholly on legislative discretion. It may be upon the bank, upon the stock, upon the profits, or in any other mode which the sovereign power shall will.