Page images
PDF
EPUB

a

a

of March, a day fixed by the constitution, and known to all. Therefore,. the act of withholding the bill was unconstitutional and arbitrary; by which congress had been deprived of the right of passing on the bill after it had been considered by the president. If he had not had time to lay his reasons before the senate, respect to congress required of him at least a communication to that effect.

Mr. Benton said that no quorum sat in either house on the evening after the day on which the bill was sent to the president.

A new bill similar to the former, was introduced by Mr. Clay, and referred, with the veto message, to the committee on public lands. The committee reported the bill to the senate, with a review of all the objections of the president. Only two points will be here noticed. The president had, in his annual message of 1832, and again in the veto message, suggested, as the proper mode of disposing of the public lands, that the price should be graduated, and after they had been offered for a certain number of years, those remaining should be abandoned to the states in which they lie. This plan, he said, would violate no compact. Now if it was inconsistent with the deeds of cession to distribute oneeighth part of the proceeds of the lands to the new states, how could it be otherwise to relinquish the whole of the lands after a few years, to those states ? The distribution proposed by the bill did not introduce a new principle. It had ever been the practice of congress to make grants of land for the benefit of the new states. Eight millions of acres had been thus granted.

The committee agreed with the president that the lands were ceded on condition that they should be disposed of for the common benefit of the states, and for no other purpose whatever; and that the public debt inight be considered as now paid, and the lands consequently released from the lien. But they did not agree with him that the power of congress over all the public lands remained the same under the constitution as under the confederation. Most of them had been acquired by treaty. These were not affected either by the articles of confederation, or by the deeds of cession; and congress could dispose of them at discretion. And the practice had been to extend this power even to the ceded lands. It was impossible to say whether each state did derive benefit from the public lands in proportion to its charge in the general expenditure, as the amount of contribution could not be ascertained. That clause in the deeds of cession had been inserted in reference to the articles of confederation, by which the contribution of each state was fixed and known; whereas, revenue was now collected, not from states in their sovereign character, but from the mass of the community, according to consumption.

The committee on public lands in the house, made a report at this ses

sion in favor of reducing and graduating the price, and a similar proposition was made by Mr. Benton in the senate. But no decisive action on the subject was taken in either bouse.

The first term of Gen. Jackson's administration, which closed the 3d of March, 1833, was distinguished no less by the unusual number of important questions which were decided under it, than by the general agitation of the public mind produced by the manner in which many of these questions were determined. Respecting its effects upon the interests of the country, public sentiment was much divided. This difference of opinion was principally confined to the domestic policy of the administration. Even its opponents acknowledged our foreign relations, except in the case of the West India arrangement, to have been ably conducted. A commercial treaty was concluded with Austria ; a treaty with the Ottoman Porte, (Turkey;) a treaty with the kingdom of the Two Sicilies, by which $1,720,000 was to be paid, as an indemnity for claims of citizens of the United States for depredations upon our commerce by the king of Naples, (Murat,) from 1809 to 1812. A treaty of commerce, and one relating to boundary, were concluded with Mexico.

An important treaty with France also was concluded at Paris, in 1831, by Mr. Rives, on the part of the United States, by which the long standing difficulties between the two countries were adjusted. The claim of our government for spoliations, so long resisted by a counter claim for the alleged non-performance on our part of the stipulation in the treaty of 1778, guarantying to France assistance in defending her West India islands against the attacks of Great Britain, was determined by this treaty. The sum stipulated to be paid as indemnity to American citizens for property taken, was 25 millions of francs, or nearly $5,000,000; which, though not exceeding one-half or one-third of the original claim, was probably as much as there was reason to expect: and it was no inconsiderable point gained, that a long pending negotiation was at length brought to an amicable termination. French claims against the United States, to the amount of 1,500,000 francs, were allowed to that government; and a claim of France for duties on her shipping in the ports of Louisiana, from which she claimed exemption by the provisions of the Louisiana treaty, was yielded in the negotiation. As a consideration for the abandonment of this claim, French wines were to be admitted, for ten years, at very low rates of duty; and France stipulated to reduce the duties on American long staple cottons to the rates charged on short staple cottons.

By the terms of the treaty, the French debt was payable in six annual instalments, the first of which became due the 2d of February, 1833. A bill drawn on the French government, and to be sold on the best terms that could be obtained, was purchased by the bank of the United States, and presented for payment; but no appropriation having been made for that purpose by the chamber of deputies, the bill was dishonored. The subject was discussed at several successive sessions of the deputies, without making the necessary appropriations.

CHAPTER XLVIII.

THE BANK CONTROVERSY.-REMOVAL OF DEPOSITS.-BANK INVESTIGATION,

The second term of Gen. Jackson's administration commenced the 4th of March, 1833. The southern excitement having been effectually allayed by a modification of the tariff in which the south had agreed to acquiesce, and the presidential contest having been decided by the triumphant reëlection of the incumbent who could not be suspected of any future political aims; a more tranquil state of the public mind dur. ing the ensuing term, was generally anticipated. The settlement of the bank question also, at least for the official term of Gen. Jackson, had strengthened the general expectation of a comparatively peaceful administration. As the event will show, however, causes of high political ex. citement were not wanting, among which the bank controversy was by no means the least.

The question as to the recharter of the bank having been determined, it was next intended to withdraw from it the public deposits, under the expressed apprehension that they were not safe in that institution. In his last annual message, (December, 1832,) the president said: "Such measures as are within the reach of the secretary of the treasury, have been taken to enable him to judge whether the public deposits in this institution may be regarded as entirely safe; but as his limited power may prove inadequate to this object, I recommend the subject to the attention of congress, under the firm belief that it is worthy of their serious investigation. An inquiry into the transactions of the institution, embracing the branches as well as the principal bank, seems called for by the credit which is given throughout the country to many serious charges impeaching its character, and which, if true, may justly excite the apprehension, that it is no longer a safe depository of the money of the people.”

The “measure” taken by secretary M'Lane to ascertain the security of

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

the public money, was the appointment of Henry Toland to make the investigation. Mr. T. reported to the secretary the 4th of December, the day of the date of the message, that the liabilities of the bank amounted to $37,296,950; and the fund to meet them, $79,593,870; showing an excess of $42,296,920. As all its liabilities must be first paid in case of insolvency or dissolution, he considered the security of the public money, unquestionable. Nor was there any doubt of the solvency of the bank.

The committee of ways and means also, to whom were referred the transactions of the bank, in relation to the payment of the public debt, and the inquiry into the present pecuniary and financial state and management of the institution, made a report through Mr. Verplanck, chairman, at a later period of the session, showing the resources of the bank to be upwards of $43,000,000 beyond its liabilities, and concluding with a resolution, "That the government deposits, may, in the opinion of the house, be safely continued in the bank of the United States."

The resolution was opposed by Mr. Polk, who thought it unnecessary to sustain the credit of the bank by adopting this resolution. Whenever the secretary of the treasury deemed the deposits in the bank unsafe, it was made his duty to withdraw them, and to lay his reasons before congress. After replies from Messrs. Ingersoll, of Conn., and M'Duffie, the resolution was adopted : ayes, 109; noes, 46.

The 2d session of the 22d congress was closed the 3d day of March, 1833, by the expiration of its official term. In May, William J. Duane, of Pennsylvania, was appointed secretary of the treasury, in the place of Mr. M'Lane, who was transferred to the head of the state department, made vacant by the appointment of Mr. Livingston as minister to France.

The president, having determined on the withdrawal of the deposits from the bank of the United States, appointed Amos Kendal to confer with state banks in relation to future deposits and distribution of the public revenue. On the 18th of September, he read to the cabinet a manifesto, giving his reasons for removing the deposits, among which were, his belief of the dangerous tendency of the bank, and his suspicions that its motive in asking for a recharter was to influence the presidential election. Documents and articles had been printed and circulated, at the expense of the bank, to influence public sentiment. The people had, ny electing him, decided against its recharter, and he desired to evince his gratitude by carrying their decision into effect. He assigned, as additional reasons, the necessity of a new arrangement before the dissolution of the bank, the misapplication of public funds, its efforts to deprive the government directors of a full knowledge of its concerns; and an attempt to induce the holders of a portion of the three per cent stocks,

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

not to demand payment for one or more years after notice should be given by the treasury department.

The charge against the bank of having expended money for political purposes, was founded upon a disclosure made by four of the government directors. Resolutions had been adopted by the board, authorizing the president of the bank, at his discretion, " to cause to be prepared and circulated such documents and papers as might communicate to the people information in regard to the nature and operations of the bank.” About $80,000 were alleged to have been expended in the years 1831 and 1832, under these resolutions, for the printing of congressional speeches, reports, and other documents, and for the purchase of pamphlets and newspapers, designed to operate on elections, and to secure a renewal of the charter. These directors had proposed the rescinding of these resolutions; but the board, instead of favoring the proposition, adopted a resolution, commending "the wisdom and integrity of the president,” and requesting him "to continue his exertions for the promotion of said object.”

With respect to the postponement of the payment of the public debt, the president alleged, that in sixteen months ending in May, 1832, the bank had extended its loans more than $28,000,000, although it knew the government intended to appropriate most of its large deposit during that year in payment of the public debt. Sensible of its inability to pay over the deposits, a secret negotiation was commenced for the holding back of about $2,700,000 of the three per cent. stock held in Holland. Having been informed by the secretary of his intention to pay off onehalf of the three per cents on the 1st of July following, which amounted to about $6,500,000, the president of the bank came forthwith to Washington, under the pretext of accommodating the importing merchants of New York, (which it had failed to do,) and undertaking to pay the interest itself, procured the consent of the secretary, after consultation with the president, to postpone the payment until the 1st of October. Conscious that it would then be unable to pay, and that no farther indulgence was to be had of the government, an agent was sent secretly to England to negotiate with the holders of public debt in Europe to hold back their claims for one year, offering them an increased rate of interest. Thus the bank expected to retain the use of $5,000,000 of money which the government should set apart for the payment of that debt. Tho president believed, had all these facts been known at the last session of congress, the house of representatives would have come to a different conclusion.

The law declared that the deposits should be made in the bank and its branches, " unless the secretary of the treasury should at any time

« PreviousContinue »