Ohio State journal and register (Columbus, Ohio), 1839-02-12

              OHlO:7STATE1J01IJKHffi'AND:"7REGISTER VOLUME 2!). COLUMBUS, OHIO, TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 12, 1839. NUMBER 31. : f UBL1BHKO HV C. SCOTT fc 8. DOUGLAS, At three Dollari a year, invariably In advance. Ttfit a vuk during tkt Bunion of tks Ligiilatnrs, ana" tfuks Iko romainder of Ito tear. OSlc on State atreel, Two dnora Weal of the Clinton Dank. ADVERTISING. Twelve llnea or leaf, one Inaerttoo u u u three...11 m m m eacbaildlllonalluserlioD,.. m m m tlireeruentlie,. .......,,., u u u aixmonthe, . .$0 50 ...I U0 ...0 5 ...3 00 ...5 00 ...8 00 twelve months, Longer ndvertlaementa In the aame proportion aa the nhove. A deduction of twenty per cent., (on the eieese,) when the amount eiceeda twenty dollara in alx montha. '- All Arlvertleementa aliould he marked on 'heir face with the lumber of Inaertlone deaired, or Ihey will be eantinued till Order lid out, and elinriod by the (naertloii. No reaponiiliility Tor errora In leant Court Advertlaenteale, beyond the amount charged Tor their Inaerilon. VlaiLT ADVBItTlltKO. ' ' One-elslith of a column, (alut 25 Hnei,) 113 00 One-fourth " lu 00 , One half. 25 00 A full column, , 40 00 Any Advertiser exceeding the amount engaged, to be charged for the el ceia, at the Aral rate above mentioned. IfTAH loiters relating to itibierlptloiia murt be addreaaed, (port-paid,) to the PoBLiancae. - LIST Of AGENTS. The following gentlemen are authorized to art aa Agents for the Ohio Blale Journal and Keglater, via: ' Wosi Union, Nelaon Uarrere, Lima D. O.Tompkiiia, Alkono A.G.Brown, Jrf'a,.ii.BeiJ. Goylord, feillM, ...L. D.Campbell, Bt.Cl'rotllli.H. J Howard, Qaorgolovn, David Johnson, Carnfitea,,.Win. Johnaon, Batavit Ainhroae Ranaoin, JYea Liobon, Dan. Hnrhaugh, Caikoeton, ..J. Kohinion, freew Jno, A. Corwln, Snringjitld, .Inn. S. Halaey, Wilming laa.G. Fooe, Buttrut Jno. Moderwell, CfdUIaad, ..Plillo Scovlll, ZHtavaro,. . .T. C. Jonee, Gromilto,. .Hiram Hell, taniuskl C, A. II. Barber, Lnntaotir, ..Geo. Sanderson, Wntkinglon, 1. 8. Bereman, Oattipotil, ..J. Droilillard, Xtaia, C. I.. Merrick, Paimoivilto. .R. Hitchcock, C4nJf,..II.K(ibb. Cadii, J, 8. Laeey, . Xtnton, George John, HHI'boro,,..W. C. Broil, MUlortinrg.W. R. Happ, JHilaa, O.W. Choat, Cincinnati, . C. Toby, Findiaf Wilaon Vance, Bur, P.O.,. David Johnaon, Jnekoon, ....Alei. Miller, t8sti7f, Jaa. Collier, Ml. Karat,. Wm. Bevena, 7ada JR. Oaborn, Barling Ian, . Wm. Miller, tftmark J. Ilathlot, Btltifont'no, B. Btanton, 'yr' A. A.BIlia, Marian, J. H. Gndmau CkotUr, ,...D. Hober, Plont I. Aitnme, lfdfld,..Win. Bietl, M'Ceuaila I villi, I P. B. Johnaon, Zai7li,..0. B. Goddard, . Medina, J. L. Clark, London, P. nlcLene, Bt. Maruo, ..R. W. Blcarna, Dooton W. J. McKlmiey, Vrt Broun, J. Deweea, Pikiton, Kllitia P. IVIeri, Kolida J. H.Cochrnn, (eaamal, ...W. Y. Moellar, CirceaiiHV.Jamea Bell, Raoonnn, ...Geo. Y. Wallace, Kalon, G. D. ilendrlcka, Manijltli, ,.C. L. toieruuin, Ckillicolkt, .C. Martin, Pr(aaitf(a,.M. Gregory, Gaarea, O. Reynolda, Tifn Joe. Howaid, Bidnlf Jacob e). Conklin, L. 8adi,A. Kddy, Worrt I,. King, Jf PHIadtl.J. Overboil, faryaeia,,lVm. Bleel, Willokin,. , .0. Mount, Porrpbnrg,.W. P. Reaner, Libanon, ...J. Probaaco, Jr., Wari!, ...J. Teat, Wootitr C. Bplnk, DoJLanco B. Bruhacher. SENATE Or THE STATE Or OHIO. SPEECH OF MR. RMITII, On the Small tfott Dilli delivered on the lid and 23d of January, 1839. The committee of the whole Senate having under consideration bill No. 45, of the House, " to prohibit the issuing and circulation of email bills," the question pending being on striking out the third and fourth sec tions ot the Dill, and Air. Walton, ol Monroe, having concluded hit speech against the amendment, and in favor ot the bill- Mr. SMITH rose, and addressed the committee as follows: Mr. Chairman: It is with no slight decree of em. barraasment that I rise to address the committee at this stage of the debate, against the constitutionality and expediency of this bill, and in favor of the amend-menu In another branch of the Legislature, it has been very elaborately discussed; and ia this body, we have listened to two very able and lengthy arguments, one against, me oilier in lavor ol, me Din, I am aware that I rise under unfavorable auspices: members have become weary of tbejtopies under discussion, and their patience ia nearly exhausted, I cannot promise many new views, new thoughts, or new arguments against the policy of this measure. Under these circumstances, prudence would, perhaps, dictate that I should remain silent: but I hold it to be incum bent upon every member of the Senate, whenever a measure is proposed in this body, and upon which we re called to act, in which ia involved a grave consti tutional question a measure which, if it receive legislative sanction, will, in the opinion of a very nwpecia- Die portion ot tnis cieuate, infringe upon rtgliis guarantied to the people by the constitution to afford all the aid in his power to a correct understanding of the merits of the case, and the precise character of the question under consideration. Whatever, aw, maybe our personal or party predilections, we are bound, by every consideration of duly, and of obligation, and bv the solemn sanctions of our oaths, to preserve inviolate the constitution of our common country. Impressed hy theae considerations, and with the hope that, if I shall not be able to present any new arguments, or authorities applicable to the present question, I may contribute, in some small degree, to impress upon the minds of Senators the furoe of the arguments already advanced, J shall, fur 1 short time, - occupy the attention of the committee. I ahall ea deavor to compress, in aa small a compass as poasi. Die, wnat i nave to say upon me subject. 1 lie politeness and attention with which Senators hare listened to the arguments of gentlemen who have preceded me, and more especially the great importance of the eubject, is a sure guarantee that I shall have the attention of the committee, whatever may be the individual opinions of members. It is known, Mr. Chairman, that I am opposed to the passage of this bill. I believe it to ba uncalled fur, inexpedient, and, if passed, a violation of tho con- illation; and entertaining theso opinions, and conscientiously convinced of their correctness, I am sure that my opposition will not be attributed to any sinister -motive, or any disposition on my part, unduly or Ins properly, to favor the hanks. I know, sir, thnt motives of that kind have heretofore been attributed to members of this and previous Legislatures, who have leu ti io ue their duty to advocate and sustain particu-lar measurea. Sir, 1 have no interest In an bankina institution further than tho interests of the community, oi wnicn am a memner, are aneclrd by banking In. alitutiona, I am no bank stockholder: neither am 1 indebted to any bank. 1 have never borrowed money of a bank; and, aa far as I know, verv few of the nco. pie, whose immediate interests I have the honor to represent upon this floor, are the owners of bank slock I know of but one of them who is. I know, air, the party wiui whom I act whose principles I approve and of which I havo the honor to ba an humble mem. ber has been denounced the as "the bank bouglilpar- v imc uai uo ,m n nun noon mo vnig party; it ia aa unjust aa it ia untrue. We sustain those in. atituliona in no unjust and unwarrantable assumptions of power; but we will sustain them, and every oilier person, in tho enjoyment of their legal and conaliiu. tional righta. We shall never, I hone, aa a party, or aa men, be induced to saoriAce eillier individual or corporate righla to appease noisy and aenseless clamor, e have recently seen a great deal of newborn xeal gainst banks; but I hope to be able to demonstrate, during the progress of my remarks, that tho Whigs r not the "exclusive bank nnrtv." Sir, I ask gentlemen who euslnin this bill, and who advocate its principles with great teal, upon what ground, and for what reason uf Stale necossity or Slate puiicy. is its passage demanded! Whence the neccs. ily or ibis con-.inual change aud Instability in our lo-ffislalion upon the delicate auaation of the currency? 1 he Senator from Monroe snys, that the peoplo demand it; that they view this subject with deep anxiety ..,. ,.,., ,, , qlloluon wna recently deculi tWely expressed, ought to bejoboyed. ' Whatever, air 1 1 ."'ioi-onxos; mat they aro now urgently press-n g this mcasnro, and demanding that this principle of "reform shall be incorporated into our banking sys- M-.nt ana mat ine vole nl Mm i,.n . ,1.... ......:.. may be my opinion, in reference to the vexed question of the binding character of instructions to the representativehowever the Senator and myself might differ in theory upon that question there is, I am bold to-assert, no Senator who entertains more profound respect for an enlightened puhlio opinion than I do. There is no one who would listen more patiently and more attentively to the wants and wishes of the peo ple, than I would. Sir, I am emphatically one of the people; I am of them; their interests are my interests; in legislating fur their benefit, my own welfare, and my own interests, ere affected, I agree that legislation i3 worse than useless, unless it he sustained by the force of public sentiment. Wherethe enlightened opinion of the community demands a change of measures, and no constitutional objection is interposed, that opinion should be heard, and not only heard, but respected. ' - - . lint, air, I take issue with the Senator upon the queation of fact, I deny that the people have thus spoken, and I call upon him for the proof. I say thnt, aa far aa I am capable of forming nn opinion, the peo ple do not, under existing circumstances, demand the passage of this hill; they do not require, at the hands of this Legislature, a muasure which would prohibit the banks of Uhio Irom Issuing bills below Hie denomination of Ave dollars, and above one dollar, while our sister Slates encourage and allow such issues. Sir, that was not the test question in the recent elections in Ohio; other questions, of more Importance, of a more exciting character, were involved, and this was one of minor consequence, But admit, for argument's sake, that this is a principle called for by tho people, will gentlemen contend, that they demand it as a measure applicable to existing banking institu- ons, or to those herealler to be created! It, by exist ing charters and existing contracts, created by previous legislation, the banks havo a vested right to issue hills of this description, do the people ask that they be deprived of those rights that these solemn contracts should be violated! Do gentlemen really believe that the people demand that you sliould do this gross in justice? Would I hey thus undertake to affix a stigma pon the character of the people? Sir, Hie people de mand, in my opinion, no such legislation. It may be the interest uf partisan demagogues upon the hustincs. and your seven by nine parly newspapers, and the re tailers ot party slang, lo propagate the opinion, that the people demand this thing; but it will not do. The people do not demand It; they wish to do right. They are aware that, if persons associated together in a corporate capacity, can be deprived of rights aolemnly guarantied to them by law and by the constitution, which is the supreme law, mere are no barriers against the invasion of individual right. Sir, if you once pass the barrier if you onco crosa the rubicon there is no limit to your infringement of rights. I trust, sir, the people understand their rights, and, understanding, dare maintain them; they are not to be deceived and led astray by the hue aud cry against corporations and associated wealtki they understand those catch-words, They believe, whatever may be their opinions, and tneir views ot ine policy oi legislating to much upon the subject of incorporations, (and no man regrets more than myself the excess of legislation upon that subject,) that, when charters are granted, and rights and privileges conferred, they ahouldbe protected and jjicsmvcu, urjr ,ion mu uuiisiiiiiuuii aa iicir permanent and established will; as the safe-guard of their rights; as a protection against unwise, improvident, and intemperate legislation. 1 lie question, then, presented, or at least one ques tion, is, have the banks of Ohio the right, under their charters, to issue bills of a less denomination than five dollars! In support of the affirmative of tins proposition, I refer you lo the provisions of the act to incorporate certain banks therein named, and to extend tho charters of existing incorporated banks," passed February 83, 181G, (3 Chase's Statutes, nage913.) The twenty-third section of that act is in these words: "That all bilU, bonds, nolei, and every eontrael anden- gflircmrw, ol any y ine una corporation) for the payment of money, shall be signed by the president and countersigned by the cashier; and the funds of the company shall, in no caao, be held responsible for any contract or engagement whatever, unless the same shall be so signed and countersigned as aforesaid; all bilk or notet uf any of the aforesaid banks, made payable to any person or bearer, shall be negotiable by delivery without indorsement; and all other Inlli, notes, or bonds of any of the aforesaid banks, shall be nego tiable in ine same manner as similar bills, notes, or bonds, drawn by any individuals, are hv law negotia- able." Without going further, sir, here is power to issue bills; it is one of the corporate franchises: to bind the funds of the company, tlmy must be executed in a particular mode; there is no limit as to the amount or denomination of the bill; it may be ono, or one thousand dollars; that is a mailer of discretion with the banks. The Legislature did not deem it necessary, at the lime ol ine passage oi tins act, to itnposo any restrictions of the kind contemplated by this bill; and if, by virtue of these charters, the right exists, I hope you will not take it away without the consent of the per sona to be affected thereby. Under Hie provisions of tins act, and by virtue el previous enactments, the power of issuing and circulating bills below the de nomination ot live dollars, has been exercited for a pe- n"u eaceeumg iweuij years witnout quosilon, and i might also say, without objection. Ths people made no objection, air, to the exercise of thia power, until it waa attempted to make it a party question; they acquiesced, and were satisfied with its exercise. w illun a tew years past, another doctrine hat been promulgated; hut it is a nrui HifM a plant of recent growth. Although, as I shall presently show, attempts have beun made to incorporate this provision in acts for the incorporation of banks which have re cently been chartered, it was not until the set of IH3G, that any attempt was maiio to impose new provisions aua restrictions upon existing charters. You, llr. t.hairman, are conversant with the provi sions of that net; you know the origin, history, and onject or mat measure, 1 ne title la au " Act lo pro- nioii ine circulation oi small Dills; ' and how. sir. ia the prohibition to he effected? Ily an exercise of the taxing power ny doing mat wUirectly which tho Legislature would not atlempt, at that day, to do itiretlli It waa an attempt, by Imposing a heavy tax, or rather a penalty, to compel the banks to surrender ngliu conferred by their chariots. I tav nothing about the con- aliiuiiunality, nor will I take up the lime of the com mittee in discussing the expediency or justice, uf that cnactmeul. In obcdtoiiee to what wna sunnosed lo ba tho wishes of a majority of the Legislature, a Inroe number of the banks surrendered so much of their charters asauthonied them to issue small bills. That act came in review before us at the last session, and it waa repealed. Hut the Senator may ask me, if vnu ohiect to insla- bilily in legislation, why did yon vote for a repeal of ine aci oi in.im I ne question I will anticipate, and answer. When the resolution was first introduced at the last session, calling upon the Curroncv Commit- tea lo inquire into the expediency of repealing that act, and restoring to the banks which hnd surrender ed It, the power to Issue small hills though friendly in ma inquiry,! uonnieu.ai nrsi, me nropiieiy ol pass-Ing such an acl. My reasons were these: though opposed to the act of 1836 in its principles, I was will ing to try the experiment; it seemed to be the deslrn of many to incorporate its provisions ns one of the features of our banking system, and I was willing to teat it. I expressed these views substantially, when the subject was first Introduced by the Senator from Jefferson (Mr, Stokeley) at the last session. But, during the progress of that measure, I became con vinced of its propriety, that the wants and neeeasitiea of the people demanded it, and I yielded to that ne cessity, t he suspension ot specie payments had deprived the country of small change; small bills hid become scarce; those that did exist, from the urgency of the demand for them, and their convenience at all times, wont worn out and defaced; their ahsenea wna supplied by an emission of corporation and other tick- eta. 1 he law of 1HM authuriied the hanks to issue small notes, on oondition that ihey should be redeemed in specie when demanded! and I voted for it. With my vole on thnt question I have seen nn cnusn to be dissatisfied. Of my course upon that subject, I am nut aware that my immediate constituents have comnlnin- ed if they have, their complaints did not reach me during the last canvass; nor have I yet heard them I represent upon Ibis floor many hundreds of high minded, intelligent freemen, who belong to the same political party to which the Senator from Monroe (Mr. Walton! belongs men with whom I dilTerpoi-tieallu, but who are not the less my personal friends; and, I have vet to learn, that they seriously object to the law of the last session. They do not consider Ihis as one of lite great questions which distinguish the principles of their party. As an abstract question of policy, many of them,' I doubt not, entertain the opinion that it is correct; that, if we were now legislating upon the subject for the first time if we were orgftuizirg a new system, and a similar policy waa pursued by our sisier States it would be expedient for us to pursuo the same course. Upon this question, I am inclined to think, though I express no decided opinion, and make no pledge, that they are right. I know that it ia a question upon which able financiers and political economists have ditlered in opinion, and upon which we may honestly entertain different sentiments. I am open to conviction, and when the proper occasion presents itself, I shall be free to think and aot upon the question. 1 think, sir, 1 have shown, as tar aa can he shown negatively, that ihe people do not, nndor existing circumstances, demand the passage of this bill. The Senator has produced no petition, no proot, and no argument to show that they do demand it, Out, sir, the Senator from Monroe, though he has not made the assertion directly, has, in a manner not to be misunderstood, intimated that this is a parly measure, and therefore must be sustained. ' That upon thnt question, if not demanded by the people, gentlemen must "toe the mark." Indeed; and is n question of this grave character a question of expediency, and of constitu tional power, to be determined upon party grounds) is the prohibition of small bills, the groat leading feature, and the cardinal doctrine of the parly to which the Senator from Monroe belongs! Have the firinciples of that party dwindled down to this? How ong has this been the doctrine of that parly? Was il the doctrine contended for hy the parly which brought Con. Jackson into power! Did lie and his friends advocate this measure in the contest commencing with 1825 and ending III 18281 No, sir, A very different doctrine was then preached to lbs people of these States. We then heard of abuses in the administration of the General Government the doctrine of iho Chief was, that the "monstor party" should be .n,h Thai iho r,etnf n man heino federalist nf . the old school, should not prevent his'appointmenl to ' office; the doctrine then was, that the choice ot fresi- dent should be left free and untrammeled- that he hould be elected for one term only. We then heard that it was wrong that individuals should be proscribed for opinion's sake that the expenditures of the government should he retrenched; that members of Congress should not, during (lie period for which they were elected, bo appointed to ofTice by the President. Sir, these were the rfcmoeraVicdoclrincs of those days. refer gentlemen to the annals of the times, and I hope they will refresh their recollections. I refer them to the debates on Chilton and Saunders' resolutions. I also refer them to the letter of Gen. Jackson to the Tennessee Legislature, and will ask liberty to read therefrom one or two extracts. Speaking of the appointment of members of Congress to office, he says: "Members, Instead ol being liable to bo withdrawn from legislation on the great interests of the nation, through prospects ol executive patronage, would be more liberally confided in by their constitu ents, while their vigilance would be less Interrupted by parly feeling and party excitement." In another place, he says: "Calculations from intrigue and management would fail;" and "it la through this channel die people may be expected to be atlacked in their constitutional sovereignty, and where tyranny may be expected to spring up in some favorable emergency." In a debate upon this eubject, In 182G, a certain distinguished gentleman high in the confidence of the Senator from Monroe and his party, and who has since rendered himself somewhat famous for treating the complaints of the peoplu wilh contempt, said: "If this unnatural union between ine legislator and bis patron, the executive, be not dissolved, every thing ike political fidelity and morality, and all our reve rence for constitutional principles must be destroyed." These were the doctrines, sir, which influenced an honest, confiding, but grievously disappointed people. Yes, sir; the battle of Now urleans aside, the doctrines at that day urged by Gen. Jackson and his friends, contributed lo raise that distinguished individual to a pinnacle of popularity heretofore attained by n very few individuals indeed. They have, sir, emphatically "Kept tho word of promise to tho ear, but Broken il lo tho hope." We heard nothing then about the unconstitutionality of the Bank of the United States; it was then popu lar; nothing about the "bank parly; nothing ol the danger to our rights and liberties by the "circulation of small bills." Sir, "ihe limes are changed, and gentlemen are changed with them; and il will be well If they do not sacrifice principle to the imaginary demands of parly. I should not, air, have called up theso reminiscences, had not the Senator from Mon roe spoken of this, as a party measure. But let ua inquire a littlo further; let us come dow n to i later period in the history of our Stale legislation. If we should give full credit lo all wo have heard for a year or two past, it would seem that some gentlemen believe that the policy of prohibiting tho issuing and circulation of small bills, and the introduction into privato acts of incorporation Ihe principle of Ihe individual liability of Its members for tho dcblsof the company, waa the principal basis upon which rest the rights and liberties ol the people ol this country. W ell, sir, it would, perhaps, be profitable to inquire, for a moment, how long these doctrines have been so strenuously advocated. I can refer yon to the jour nals ot Ihe nenalo and Mouse ol ttopresentaiives oi Hits Male, in cases where the question of prohibition and of individual rcsponsidilily was directly met, voted upon, and decided: and I will show you, that it was not then niailu a party question mat leading members of tho Van lluren parly then voted against both these propositions. Were these doctrines at that time considered leading features of genuine democracy? II so, certain gentlemen had wandered lar iroin I lie true fold. I now refer you, sir, to the Journal of Ihe House of Representatives of 1832-3, page 204. The bill to in corporate the Bank uf Wooster being under consideration, Mr. Wbitehill (a Whig,) moved further to amend the bill, by striking out the following words at the end of Ihe 1 1 tit section, to wit: "to the amount or hit slock subscribed in said bank." The Journal, air, is nut very full, but I understand that the effect of the amendment was to make tho stockholder liable Indi vidually for the debts of the bank. On that question, sir, the nay were as follows: Messrs. Dlocksnin, illackburn, Campbell of Crawfunl, Cochran, Cooper, Cumstock, Doan of Cuyahoga, I'isk, Filch) Harlan, Hendricks, Ihrig, Keith, Leonard, Matthews, Merry, Newell, Nonhrup, Powers, Kiddle, Swinuey, Whittlesey, and Speaker (Disney.) I do not precisely know the political complexion of that Legislature; but I think I can sav that ul least ten of those gentlemen voting in Ihe negative, aud perhaps more, were decided tiienda of the administration of Gen. Jackson, and Iho friends of Mr. Van Iltiren. In the same vol. ume, page 9IV7-8. the hill to incorporate Iho Franklin Bank of Cincinnati being under consideration, Mr. Whitehill moved to amend the bill by striking out certain words, and inserting ihe following: "every stockholder of said company shall bo liable in his individual capacity lo such cridilur or creditors to Iho full amount of the debt due such creditor or creditors." Upon this question, some Whigs and some friends of i.:..f : .1 ;.. ,t. .ii...nn.:... i ...in me IIIIHOISirailoll VUiuu .nn auiiuuvn. I will gtvo Ihe names of those voting in Ihe negative; they were as follows: Messrs. Atkinson, lllocksom. Dig ger, Bond, Bootbe, Brown, Bureau, Campbell of Crawford. Cochran, Cooper, lomslock, t-urtis, Ullle, Doan of Clermont, Dunn of Cuyahoga, Donally, Kv- erett. Ewinr, risk, rnch, l,rnio, Harlan, llendnek Ihrig, Keith, Leetch, Leonard, Matthews, McCanslvn, Merry, Newell, Nixon, Norlhrup, Page, Patlnn, Powers, Kiddle, Stewart, Vanco, VVhilllesey, Wor-Ihington, Wright, tnd Speaker (Disney.) Of these, some sixteen were members of the dominant party: toveral ol them, sir, aro now members ot this Senate and high in the confidence of the parly which sup pnrla Mr. Van lluren, When the same bill was undm consideration in the Senate, (Journal 1832-3, p. 401 Mr. Kllshory (a Whig member,) moved that the hit be re-committed to a select committee of one member,' wilh instructions to amend said bill, so as to prevent said bank from issuing notes of a less denomination than five dollars: and the yeaa and nays being demanded, those who voted in the affirmative were Messrs. Blackburn, Briggs, Brown, Carothers, Ella-berry, Gass, Holmes, Hallack, Leonard, Morris, McMechan, Robinson, Shepler, Spangler, Walke, and Woodmansee. 16. Those who voted in ihe negative were Messrs, Colwell, Cox, Doherty, Duncan, Dunn, Eggleston, Jamee, Lewis, McNutl, Nye, Orton, Kigga, Seely, Thompson, Tilden, Willey, and Speaker (S. it. Miller.) i Here, air, was a lest vote, in a case in which the (jueslion was directly made, and you find at least six gentlemen friends of the present administration, and some of them standing very high in the confidence of "the party" pillars of modern democracy, voting against tiie incorporation of tiiis provision in a neiv bank charter. Sir, I come down to a later period, and will make one or two other references. In the Journul of the House of ltopresei)lativc8 of 1833-4, page 479-80, the House having under consideration the bill to incorporate the Ohio Life Insurance and Trust Company, Mr. Patterson moved to amend the. bill by preventing the company from issuing bank bills of a less denomination than five dollars; thirty-five members voted in the negative, and many of them are now leading members of the Van Bnreii party in Ohio; and were then warm supporters of lien. Jackson and his administration, it is unnecessary to read their names; gentlemen oan examine for themselves. An amendment making the stockholders liable in their individual character for the notes, b.lls and debts of the company, was rejected, 33 to 38; leading democrats so called, voting in Ihe negative. In the same Journal, Eage 509, you will see ihe vote on the passage of the ill to incorporate the Bank of Circleville, the yeas were 41, nays 28; examine the yeas, and you will see that n large proportion of those voting for the bill were of the dominant party; and that chartet gave express power to Ihe company to issue nolee below the denomination of five dollars. Sir, I might r-fer you lo many other important votes upon bank charters within the last few years, and show how materially the opinions of gentlemen have changed, but I desist; "consistency is indeed a Jewel." . But 1 suppose the spirit of Ihe age demands improvement; aud nothing has undergone more improvement according to ine P't" tl""ry, than the old fashioned democracy of former days. I doubt, sir, the utility of such im provements; they savor of an " improvement of the jrress," of which we heard something from'a certain distinguished individual some years ago. The State of New York some years since passed a prohibitory statute. Well, sir, the measure bore so hard upon the interests of her people, that that State has retraced her steps. At the last session of her Legislature, I am credibly informed that petitions were presented signed by more than 50,000 of the freemen of that Stale, of both political parties, praying for a repeal or suspension nf that act; it was suspended: and at the present session uf the Legislature of that State, Ihe acl has been unconditionally repealed, by an almost unprecedented majority. Tho vote in tho Assembly being, for Ihe repeal, 117; against it, 6. In the Sen- ale, ayes 28, noes 3. Will gentlemen attribute this vote to the ascendency of the Whig party in the Legislature of New York? I presumo not, sir. Gentlemen are aware that in the Senate of New York the friends of the administration are in Ihe majority. The repeal was sustained by all parties; it was demanded by the people, and shows the truth of the remark often made, that that Stale understands her true interests that wlien those interests and party politics conflict, the latter yields to the former; that if Now York humbugs, she is never humbugged. Thus much, -sir, in reference to the expediency of the measure; and the alleged demands of the people in its favor. I will not further trespass upon the patience of the committee in discussing the question of expe diency, but leave the effect and operation of such a measure upon the interests and business operations ot tho country, to abler hands than mine. I now ap proach a subject which I consider or much more importance, and upon which I propose to say a few words. I allude, sir, to the question of the constitu tionality of this bill. Thia I deem to be a question of vital importance. Sir, there is not a member of this Senate, whatever may be hit politics, who would fir tho wealth of "all the Indies," Knowingly and wilfully violate his nalh and the constitution. It is a sacred Instrument, and one whose sanctity must be preserved. Whatever may be our views of policy or expediency whatever may be Ihe diveisily of our opinions on political and party topics when we approach a great constitutional question, I should be particularly gratified if we could approximate towards unanimity; and If possible "see eye to eye:" but from the argument already submitted by the Senator from Monroe, and the preparations making by the Senator from Trumbull, (Mr. Tod.) I am aware that such will not be the case. The questions presented, aro: 1st. Are bank charters contract within the true in tent and meaning of Iho Constitution of the United States and of this Slate? And 2d. Do the charters of the banks of Ohio confer cer tain rights, privileges, and franchises, of which this bill seeks to deprive them? If, Mr. Chairman, we are to consider any principle as sell led beyond cavil or question; if wo are bound by judicial authority, upon questions referred to Iho determination of those tribunals; if any respect is to be given to a long course of judicial precedents; if Ihe decisions of the highest and the most enlightened Courts in the United States, or In the world, are entitled to regard and respect, then, sir, I consider the first question as settled authoritatively, and definitely settled, beyond cavil and beyond controversy. This question has repeatedly arisen, and has been decided by the greatest minds winch hays adorned Ihe judicial annals of ihis country. 1 will refer to soma authorities. Chancellor Kent, a name respected and honored by every lawyer, in IheSd volume of hiacom-mcuUries on American Law, pago 215, lays "A privato corporation, whether civil or eleemosynary, is contract between the government and the corporators, and tho Legislature ranriol repeal, impair or alter the rights and privileges Conferred by Ihe cliarters, against the cuiuriU and without the Ji fault uf the corporation, judicially ascertained and declared." "This great firinctplc otconstiiuiloual law, says lie, "was settled n Ihe case of Dartmouth College vs. Woodward ; and il had been asserted and duclurrd by the Supremo Court of the United States in several oilier cases antecedent lo that decision." " To alter, says he, " la to make a thing otherwise than it would ba, and it means trrry degree snd spicics if change. To curtail or cut down corporate powers is loallur Ilium, equally as to enlarge tliem would be to alter them." The case of Fletcher va Puck, in 6 Cranch 87, has been referred to and portion of it read by Ihe Senator from Pickaway ; that is au important and a leading authority in favor nf the sanctity of legislative con-tracts. In the case of Turret vs Taylor, 9 Cranch 4.1, il was held hy tho Supreme Court uf ilia United Sialea, that a legislative grant was not revocable; that if the Legislature possess authority to make a grant, it waa very clear tlt.it it vested an indefeasible and irrevocable title that there waa nn authority or principle which could support tho doclrinn that a legislative grant ia revocablu in lis own nature, and held only durante bencplaeilo that such n doctrine was utterly inconsistent with a great fundamental principle of republican government iho right uf (he citixons to the free en joyment of their properly legally acquired. Nor could llie Legislature repeal atuiuies creating private corporations, ur confirming to thorn property already so-quired, undnr the faith of previous laws; and by such repeal vest the properly in others, without tho consent or default of the corporators; that such a proceeding was repugnant, to the Idler and spirit of tho constitution and to the principles of natural l ust ice. But, Sir, it was the great ease of Dartmouth College va Woodward, reported in ihe 4h volume of W Iteatun, page 518, in which these great principles worn illustrated and established, by a profoundness of argument, and depth of research never before surpasseJ. In Ihe language nf Chancellor Kent, " tho argument of the Supreme Court in that case, contains one of tho most full and elaborate expositions of the constitutions! sanctity of contrats to be met with in any of the reports. The decision in that case did moro than any other single act proceeding from the authority of the United Slates, to throw an impregnable barrier around all rights and franchises, derived from the grant of government ; and to give solidity and inviolability to the literary, charitable, religious and commercial institutions of out country." I will not, Sir, occupy the time of the Com mittee in quoting irom that case; it has been read ana commented upon by the Senator from Pickaway. In the case ul the Providence Hank vs Hillings and r I It-man, it was expressly stated bv the Supreme Court of the I'nited Slates, Chief Justice Marshall delivering the opinion, that a bank charter waa a contract ; indeed, the principle was not denied by the counsel who argued that case. The Senator, (Mr. Walton,) has referred to an opinion of Mn Chief Justice Taney, given while he occupied the office of Attorney General of the United States, in the case of the Amboy and Camden Rail Road Company, and which will be found in Niles Register, vol. 45, pp, 151-2, for the purpose of establishing the position, that there are certain sub jects upon which one Legislature, cannot bind a sub sequent legislature. Without at this time, examining ihe correctness of that opinion; and protesting that il should not be received as binding authority, being merely the opinion ol a lawyer; out air, as ihe Senator has referred to it as authority, I wish to turn his attention to one or two paragrnpha of that opinion, and ask of him whether he considers them as good authority and whether he indorses the opin ions there expressed I Mr. Taney says, " it is now too well settled to be disputed, that a charter granted bv a state to a enmnnnv incornnrated to make a road or canal where the funds uf the company are provided by individuals, is a contract on the part ot the Male, and the public cannot by subsequent legislation alter the terms of the charters." Again, "There are cases no doubt in which the acts of tho legislature irrevocably bind the State. This happens In all cases of delega ted powers where the agent is acting within the scope of his authority. Thus, for example, if the Legislature of a State borrowa money, or grants the public lands in lee simple, or establishes acorporalion to accomplish some nubtic object, and endows it for that mimosa with certain particular faculties, capacities and privileges, in all these instances the people of the State are bound by the acts of their representatives, becauso such acts are within the admitted scope of legislative authority; and being contracts made by the authorised agents of the people, they aro necessarily binding on their constituents; and cannot be altered without the consent uf the other party to the contract." Sir, will the Senator from Monroe, deny the constitutional power nf Ihe Legislature to incorporate a bank? He will not. Are not those corporations established to accomplish some public object the regulation of the currency, and tho furnishing of a circulating medium? they are. For that purpose, are not the banks endued with certain particular faculties, capacities and privileges! they are. Ia not Iho issuing of bills one of them ? it Is. Well Sir, are they not contracts which you cannot impair ? Sir, it follows as a necessary consequence from the very opinion upon which the gentleman relies. The case that the Attorney General was examining, embraced principles, which from the limited power of the Legislature of New Jersey, he thought they had no authority to pass under the constitution of that State; but the power to ?;ranl acts of incorporation in Ohio is expressly con-erred.Judge Hitchcock, in delivering the opinion of the Supreme Court of Ohio in the case of the State of Ohio vs The Commercial Bank of Cincinnati, says : " We take it to be well settled that the charter of a private corporation is in Ihenatureofa contract between the Slate and the Corporation. Had there ever been any doubts upon this subject, those doubts must have been removed by the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Woodward vs Dartmouth College. Powers once granted cannot bo re-yoked ; nor can any material change be made in such act of incorporation, unless by the assotit of the corporation themselves." But Sir, the Senator from Monroe argues, that the decision of the Supremo Court in that case was erroneous, and that in deciding, that a clause in the charter of that institution, prohibited the legislature from levying a greater tax than four per cents upon its dividends, they decided in favor of the doctrine that one legislature has the right lo restrict Ihe taxing power of succeeding legislature, which he says is heretical. He further contends that if the court assume the power of declaring an act of the Legislature unconstitutional, the court in that case should have decided, that provision of the charter to be unconstitutional. Ho insists thai the remark of Chief Justice Marshall in Ihe case of ihe Provideuce Bank vs Billing and Pittman, 4 Peters Rep. 5G3, " that an incorporated bank is not exempted from taxation unfeu lis charter shall express the exemption" is extra-judicial an obiter dictum', and he says no judicial decision can be produced, whero the point came directly bo-fore the court, and the power of Ihe legislature toexenipt by contract property of any kind from taxation, was-sustained. Sir, I take issue wilh the Senator. In the casaf the State of New Jersey vs Wilson, 7 Cranch Kep. 164, It was held by the Supreme Court of the United Slates, that if the Legislature should declare by law, that certain lands to ba thereafter purchased for the use uf the Indians should not he subject to any tax, such a legislative act amounted to contract, which could not be rescinded by a subsequent legislature. And a subsequent act levying a tax on the land, was held to be unconstitutional. For a legislative ex position of the power, I refer gentlemen to Ihe 42d sec-lion of the law of 181(1, in relation to Hanks, already referred to ; and to the filh section of Ihe " Act to provide for the internal improvement of the State of Ohio by navigable oanals," (Ohio Laws, vol. 33,) where it is among other things provided as follows i "And the faith of the State is hereby pledged, thst the tax hereby levied, shall not be altered or reduced, so a to impair the security hereby pledged for the payment of the interest and the final redemption of the principal of tho sums to be borrowed by virtue of Ihis act and that no tax shall ever be levied by the legislature or under the authority of this State, on lb- slock to b created hy virtue of Ihis act ; nor ou the interest which may be payable thereon and further that the value of the said slock shall be in no wise impaired by any legislative act of this stale." Mr. Chairman, I deem the authorities referred to. sufficient in all conscience, to establish my first posi tion, mat ine cuarrer oi a company in oiner words a private act of incorporation, ia contract. Other authorities are at hand but it is unnecessary to refer to them. The case of the Charles River Bridge vs Warren Bridge, 1 1 Peters Rep. 420, ia a leading case but it has already been referred lo, nnd commented upon. Tho Senator (Mr. Walton) aware of tho weight of those authorities, now contends that a corporation tnkes nothing by implication, that hy virtue of Ihe Act of 1810, thero ia no express power conferred upon the hanks to issue hills of less denominalion than five dollars, and that therefore they do not possess that power. (Doe not the gentleman lee, to what such an argument would lead ! If they have no power lo issue three dollar bills, they have no power to Issue one hundred dollar lulls. I be position assumed by th grnilemm is incorrect. I understand tho doctrine to be that corporation baa no power except what is conferred in express terms, and such as i nrctturry find proper to carry info execution, the express grants of power, Uhanecllot Kent in Ihe Vil vol.ol his commen taries, pngu 839, says: "the modern doctrine is, to consider corporations as having such powers ns are specifically granted by tho act nf incorporation, or as are necessary for the purpose of carrying into effect Iho powers expressly granted, and aa not having any other. The Supreme Court of the United Slates decided Ihis obious doctrine in 1801, and it has been repealed in the dcoisions of the Stale Courts." But Sir, what will the Senator say, in regard lo Ihoso charters where the power to issue bills below the denomination of five dollars is exprevly confemdt There is ono charter, if no more, of Ibat description. I allude now to the Bank of Circleville and the Legislature reserve to themselves the power lo (Iter and amend the charter in that respect after the year 1843. That bank Sir, was ehartered when the party to which the gentleman bolongs waa in the majority in the Leg. islaiure. They incorporate a bank ; Ihey expressly confer upon it the power to isstto (mall bills; they reserve lo the Legislature ihe power of altering that provision after the year 1843 : and now Sir, when I wish to preaerve that contract inviolate, the Sonatur wishes to break ths bond. And because I wish to preserve rights under a Contract made by hi party, I am to be charged with being governed by bank influence. Sir, this is too bad. In the aspect in which I view this case, and with the facta before me, it ia unnecessary to decide upon Ihe operation and effect of the act of 1838. There are five banks which did not under the act of 1836 surrender so much of their chartera aa authorised the issue of small bills. There may be some doubt as to the effect of the law of 1838; it look to me to be in the nature of a contract. It repeals the law of 183C, and restores to the banka the powers and privileges surrendered. This bill Sir, prohibits the circulation of bills between five and ten dollars after a certain period ; that power the act of 1836 did not prohibit, and therefore it infringes upon the Act of 1816. Suppose, Sir, the Banks should issue notes of five thousand dollars ; snd the people should complain that they did not answer the purposes intendedcan you compel them to iasue one dollar bills? Having the power to issue bills, they can exercise a discretion as to the amount; unless expressly restrict-; ed by their'charters. ' But, Sir, it has been urged that the Legislature have the power to repeal private charters, whenever the , public good requirea it, without a reservation of the right in the actof incorporation. And who are to judge of this matter 1 Sir, it ia said the Legislature is the ' judge. In the name of my country and ita constitution, in the name of the people of Ohio, I enter my solemn protest against this doctrine this unlimited legislative supremacy, this atlempt to make the Legislature superior to the people, and the great organic ' law which they have ordained. I deny the power in ! the abstract and the concrete. And I say upon the , very aamejprinciple you may abolish trial by Jury, and violate the oonstitulion in every other respect. The public good! Sir, the people have established certain great principle which you must not touch they are : sacred and holy: and upon this subject permit me to' say in the language of a distinguished citizen, that " I ' iuvu aim resiieci ine constitution oi my country ana the rights ot the people under it, more than an administration, or a majority." 1 lie Senator, Sir, has attempted to derive this Dower from the clause in the constitution which provide that " private property ought and shall ever be held inviolate, but always subservient to the public welfare, pro-' vided a compensation in money be made to the owner." Sir, the clause of the constitution referred to, ha no application to the present case; the cases contemplated by it are well understood. It does not authorise the ' destruction of property nor the violation of a contract ; ' nor does mis bill propose a compensation in money, for a deprivation of the rights thus attempted to be ; taken away. Sir, in discussing the first proposition, I have ne-' cessarily dwelt somewhat upon Ihe second ; which is, that the bank charters confer certain rights, privi leges and franchises, of which this bill seeks to deprive them. It proposes, Sir, to prohibit the exercise of a power conferred by their charters, and to render the' exercise of that power highly penal. Can it legally be done ! I say not. If you do it, you iinpa'r the con-, tract, and you violate (unintentionally I admit) the . constitution of your country. , Mr. Uhairman, a lew words more and 1 nave done. I confess, Sir, that some of tire doctrine contended for by the Senator, were startling. I allude, Sir, to hia opinion of legislative supremacy and his doctrines in ' regard to the authority of judicial decisions. The gen-' tlemanhas not directly denied the constitutional power of the Supreme Court to pronounce an act of the Legislature unconstitutional. He has, however, expressed doubt upon this point argues Uiat it i an infringement upon legislative supremacy and (peak of ita exercise a the assumption of an omnipotent altu tude, by the courts. Will the Senator deny that the : baais npon which the whole American fabric hue been erected is, that Ihe people have a right to establish (or their future government, such principles as in their opinion most conduce to their happiness ? That the . great improvement made by our system is a tvritten constitution, conferring powers, and imposing limits-, lions snd restriction upon the exercise of other powers? That a constitution thus established ia the fixed, permanent and established will of the people superior to the legislative power which is derived from it not subject to be changed but by the people themselves in their sovereigo capacity t That the legislature is t creature of the constitution, and cannot legally trans- ' cend Ihe powers delegated by that instrument 1 That ' If .1.- I Ll-.: -.1 1-1.-,.. J: , , ' ii .no legislative yunni cau au nullum, uisregaru Bnu transcend the boundaries of the constitution, ours ia a government of unlimited powers, and acta prohibited, are of equal obligation With acta allowed ! sir, my doctrine is, that a legislative aot, repugnant lo the constitution, is void tiiat if void, the Courts are not bound by It that when a case la presented to the ' Judicial tribunals, it is emphatically their province to ' determine what the law is and that if the constitution, and the legislative act conflict, the latter is no law, and the courts mual to aeeiae. tins Is their province as the judicial department of the government as the , expounders of the law. A contrary doctrine. Air. , Uhairman, would indeed be giving the Legislature i s practical and real omnipotence, with the aame breath - which pofeases to restrict their powers within narrow limits. It is prescribing limits, snd declaring that ' those limits can be passed at pleasure. It reduces to nothing what has been deemed the greatest improve ment of political institutions, s written constitution." (Here Mr. Smith read some extracts from Mr. Jeffer- . aou'a notes on Virtriuua. and thn VmlpraHai. vaIbiim to the dangers to be apprehended from Iho doctrines of legislative usurpation, and legislative supremacy; and from the Inaugural sd dress of Gov. Porter, on Ihe importance of preserving the public faith Inviolate.) Sir, I cannot believe that the Senator from Monroe oan, if he will only reflect s moment uuon the aub. ject, doubt the power of the judiciary to declare t le gislative act unconstitutional. 1 hey do not seek for occasions to exercise this power they only do it when cases are regularly brought before them: and, sir, when that is the case, there is not s grander moral spectacle exhibited is the administration of this government, than to see sa enlightened Judge vindicating the constitution from all sssaults, whether direct or indirect, open or insidious. Sir, I have many other things to say npon this subject; but I have already occupied too much lime. I will bring my remarks to s close. I have endeavored to show Ibe importance ofdie-cnaslno- thia aubiect ealmlv. rliatainn,.l ...J far as possible from sny undue party feeling: that there is no necessity for the passage of this bill: that expediency and (rood policy require its rejection: that the people of Ohio do not demand the measure: that it would be prejudicial to their interests, snd that therefore it it Impolitic: that the power, the exercise of which is to be prohibited by this bill, has been exercised for more than twenty years to th general satisfaction, and wilh the general concurrence of the people: that a queation of thia kind ought not to be determined upon psrty grounds: thst nntil a very recent period, no attempt was ever made to make it s party question. In support of this position I have referred yon to the legislation of Ohio and New York: and lastly, I have endeavored to show that bank chartera are contracts; that by them certain right and privileges have been conferred, which this bill seeks to take away; and that therefore il will impair s contract, and ia unconstitutional. do nut flatter myself that I have changed the opinion of one member of the Senate; if I have not, I can sav I havo at least diachar. rd s duty; nnd if 1 have contributed in any degree to vindicate the constitution of my country, and the rights ui any portion oi ner people irom violation, my purpose will have been fully answered. Sir, if in the mutations of party and the changes uf ouinion in ibia country, any olass of your people should become nn- i.u,u.m, ma on inai grounu ineir rignis are to be violated snd sacrificed, regardless of constitutional provisions, that instrument is not worth a rush. I enter my protest against such s doctrine; I deny ihis English doctrine of the omnipotence of legislative power; and in vindicating the constitution, I am vindicating the righta of the people. To the committee, and to Ihe country, I submit the question. LAMP OIL. ftKK GALLONS aura Wletat ana fall Mralard Oil IfaJajv SOU do. Ultachea ao. tnaUAilartlela fnrlua laiuiie r-1 aala at UK Olilo Drill Bona, kjr J' H BI'MNrn CLAS.K. ( hlun, Ulnaa miiT tueeuawnre, ALAlOKaul wall aXKUHl eaaoUM ) imlnl ana tor . aaleal H. BALDWIN'S, Dae. 18. .tws) , ana loot south ot KoMuecm'i t il; llmias, 2