Mr. CALHOUN repeated the reluctance with which he objected to any motion which, in the opinion of the gentleman who made it, would improve the bill; but, he had thought that even the propriety of ten per cent. contemplated by the bill, was very questionable, as he doubted whether that provision might not produce combinations against the bank, which were so anxiously guarded against. Every man acquainted with the subject knows, that no bank can, at all times, possess the means of meeting a general run upon it; and he submitted it to the House, whether such a provision as was now proposed, would not be dangerous to the institution, by inviting a run on it, and there by producing a suspension of payment. He admitted that it was all important to the benefit anticipated from the bank, that it should pay its notes, at all times, in specie; and he thought that end already secured by other sanctions sufficiently guarded. This bank, said Mr. C. is no more than a part of the commercial community in which it is established, and any embarrassment of the bank must press, also, on the whole commercial community; that community would be the first to give way in such a case, and this would produce a run on the bank, and compel the stoppage of payment. If the amendment would produce a greater certainty of specie payments, it might be proper; but believing that it might defeat its own object, and produce that which it was intended to guard against, he thought it dangerous, &c.

Mr. WARD, of Massachusetts, was in favor of the amendment. He thought Mr. CALHOUN had over-rated the mischiefs which might possibly ensue from its adoption. Mr. W. believed that no person would resort to the penalty, unless where the bank might exceed a temporary refusal to pay its notes. It the bank declined payment for a short time only, there was no person who would peremptorily go to law for the penalty; and there was no danger of the combination predicted. It was his opinion that the provision would be beneficial to the bank, by the character it would give it as a specie bank, the superior confidence which it would of course possess throughout the country, and the great business it would consequently be enabled to do, &c.

Mr. RANDOLPH said the argument of the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. CALHOUN) was a very powerful objection to the principle of the bill, but none against the amendment; it was an argument which he had been keeping in reserve by himself, for another stage of the bill. He had no objection to take fifteen per cent. as the penalty, but he preferred twenty, for another reason. The flagitious conduct of the banks, for some time back, had proven that they could make ten per cent. more than their fair profits: and his object was to make the damages surpass any profits the bank could make by refusing to pay specie. We ought, he said, to remember certain surplusses which the banks, on particular occasions, distributed, in addition to the declared dividends, and it was proper in this case to guard against speculation of this kind. All banking institutions were alike in their desire to swell their profits to the greatest extent, howsoever correct and virtuous the directors might be in their private characters; and he would guard against every public robber of every grade, whether he be a governor general of India or a Bagshot highwayman. He would put it out of the power of this bank to commit frauds on the community, without ruin to itself. Let the penalty be ample, said Mr. R. Make the bank a good one, and there is no danger of their being unable always to pay specie.

The question on making the penalty twenty instead of ten per cent. was then taken, and negatived: ayes 52, noes 70.

The House then proceeded with the remaining amendments of the committee of the whole; the consideration and decision on which having been completed,

Mr. CALHOUN moved to amend the bill, by fixing the amount of the second cash payment at ten dollars, instead of five, as it stood in the bill. This being agreed to, and some other minor motions being disposed of,

Mr. WEBSTER moved to amend the clause which declares that the bank may sue and be sued "in all courts whatsoever," by designating the State

courts.

Mr. HALL asked if it would not be better, before this motion was acted on, to inquire a little whether Congress have the power to grant jurisdiction to the State courts, which, in some cases, they had refused to exercise, he thought properly, and the constitutionality of which was very doubtful.

Mr. WEBSTER said the question was an important one; but this was not the first time Congress had legislated on it, though the courts of Virginia had resisted their jurisdiction. Without, however, discussing the question at present, Mr. W. said the bill was just as objectionable as it stood, because it gave the bank the power to appear in "all courts whatsoever."

After some further discussion between Messrs. CALHOUN, WRIght, Wilde, and GROSVENOR, on the propriety of granting jurisdiction to the State courts, specifically,

The question was taken, and the amendment adopted.

Mr. Roor then renewed the motion he had unsuccessfully made, in committee of the whole, to reduce the rate at which six per cent. stock is to be received in subscriptions to the bank, from par to ninety per cent. Mr. R. repeated briefly his reasons for the motion, already stated, and Mr. CALHOUN, his objections to it; when, after some remarks in support of it by Mr. Ross, The question was taken, and decided in the negative: yeas, 34; nays, 106. Mr. HALL, of Georgia, then moved a new section to the bill, the object of which was to apply the bonus arising to the Government from the incorporation of the bank, to the internal improvement of the country; and, to avoid any contention about the part of the country at which to commence the work, Mr. H. said he would leave that to the decision of a future Congress. The bonus, he thought, would afford, from year to year, as much as could be easily employed, and, by the end of twenty years, when the charter would expire, the proceeds would have accomplished every object of improvement which would be proper for the General Government to attempt.

Mr. CALHOUN declared his approbation of the object, but feared the adoption of the amendment might drive off some who would otherwise support the bill. Unfortunately for us, he said, there was not a unanimous feeling in favor of internal improvement, some believing this not the proper time to commence that work; and such a provision might deprive the bill of some friends, which, at present, was the main object of his solicitude.

Mr. HALL thought this the most proper moment for commencing the great work of internal improvement; but, if he thought this amendment would draw off any support from the bill, he would not urge it. He believed, however, it would produce a different effect, and would gain friends for the bill, who, otherwise, would not vote for it. His principal reason for wishing to provide for his object in this bill, was, that it would then be sanctioned by a charter, and not revocable, &c.

Mr. GROSVENOR had no objection to the application of the bonus in the way proposed, but he disapproved of providing for the object in this bill. Government might hereafter wish, for various reasons, to get rid of its stock in the bank, but it would be precluded from doing so, if this amendment was adopted. There was no good reason for attaching it to this bill, because, if a majority of the House were, as he hoped they were, friendly to internal improvements, they could act on the subject separately.

Mr. WRIGHT and Mr. WILDE successively offered some remarks in favor of the motion.

The amendment was rejected by a considerable majority.

Mr. CONDICT proposed to amend the bill, by substituting "New York" for "Philadelphia," in the clause which fixed the location of the bank. It was,

Mr. C. remarked, unnecessary to say any thing as to the considerations which ought to prevail, in fixing a bank for commercial purposes. He would merely remark, that, in addition to the superior commerce of New York, the bank, in that city, would serve the financial purposes of the Government as well as it could at Philadelphia. In the latter city, he believed, moreover, there was already a plenty of bank capital, &c.

Mr. CALHOUN observed that this was a question on which, he presumed, all had made up their minds; and it would be superfluous to say any thing on it. He hoped, however, the motion would not prevail. The old Bank of the United States was established at Philadelphia, and he would prefer that city for the present institution.

Mr. ROBERTSON said that Mr. CALHOUN's reason for preferring Philadelphia, if it had any weight at all, operated against himself; for the old bank having been fixed in Philadelphia was an argument for placing this bank in some other city, that the benefits might not be given to one place alone; besides, if the bank was taken from the seat of Government, to place it in a more com mercial situation, it ought to be fixed in that city which was most commercial. But he had another objection, in this case, to Philadelphia, and, with him, the strongest one; this was, the hostility of the representatives of that city to the bank itself. He would not consent to impose upon a place an institution which was so odious to them, &c.

Mr. WRIGHT also spoke in favor of the motion, and incidentally urged the high claims of Baltimore and of Washington city.

Mr. COMSTOCK argued in favor of New York, as possessing superior commercial advantages, and the propriety of selecting that city for a bank intended to aid commercial activity, &c.

The motion to strike out Philadelphia, and insert New York, was then decided in the affirmative:

Mr. ATHERTON, with a view to restrain attempts to speculate in the stock of the bank, by persons subscribing for more than they could pay for, and selling it afterwards at an advanced price, and to make all the subscriptions bona fide ones, moved substantially to amend the bill, by providing that, in apportioning the shares, no subscription should be reduced as long as there was on the list a larger subscription.

After a few words from Mr. SMITH, of Maryland, who thought the provision would be ineffectual and was unnecessary, the amendment was adopted, ayes 67, noes 43.

Mr. MAYRANT offered a new section to the bill, the object of which was to allow the five directors appointed by the Government, each, a salary of dollars; and to prevent their obtaining any loan or accommodation from the bank.

In support of his proposition, Mr. M. spoke at some length. He adverted to the immense funds of the Government which would pass through this bank, amounting annually to the sum of twenty-five millions, exclusive of the stock owned therein by the Government. We were entering into partnership, he said, with persons unknown to us, and about to place in their hands the immense revenues of the country. It was indispensable, therefore, that the Government should not only have a strong influence in the bank, but its directors ought to be made independent, and, as far as possible, placed beyond the temptation of betraying their trusts-he would make them, indeed, as independent as the judges. Mr. M. quoted examples from many countries in Europe to prove the necessity of giving the Government greater influence in the bank, which, in none of the instances he had cited, had ever been injurious to the prosperity of those institutions.

Mr. CALHOUN replied that his colleague's object could not be effected by his amendment; because, if the directors were precluded from borrowing from the bank, directly, they could borrow in the name and through the medium of some friend. Mr. C. remarked further, that the salary offered must be very large to induce a commercial man of any standing to forego the benefits of the bank.

Mr. MAYRANT thought a salary of 3,000 dollars would be a sufficient inducement to men, well qualified for the direction, to relinquish the privilege of borrowing from the bank. After some further observations, in answer to Mr. CALHOUN,

Mr. MAYRANT's motion to amend the bill was negatived, without a division. The only remaining motion, meriting particular notice, was by

Mr. ATHERTON, who moved that the rate at which the three per cent. stock shall be received for subscription, shall be reduced from 65 to 50 per cent. Some debate ensued on this motion, which had not concluded, when The House adjourned.

MARCH 13, 1816.

Mr. ATHERTON's motion, to make the rate of subscribing the three per cent. stock, fifty instead of sixty-five per cent. being still under consideration,

This motion was negatived; and Mr. ATHERTON subsequently moved to receive the three per cent. at sixty, instead of sixty-five per cent. which was also negatived: Yeas 53, Nays 55.

Mr. CLENDENIN moved to reconsider the vote of yesterday, which fixed the principal bank at the city of New York.

This motion produced a debate of some length, and considerable animation. Messrs. SMITH, of Maryland, and WRIGHT, Spoke in favor of the re-consideration, and incidentally urged the claims of Baltimore to the possession of the mother bank. Messrs. HOPKINSON, SERGEANT, CALHOUN, PICKERING, Ross, and INGHAM, likewise advocated the re-consideration, and the claims of Philadelphia. Those who spoke against the re-consideration, and of course in favor of New York, were Messrs, CONDICT, SOUTHARD, ROOT, TAYLOR, of New York, ROBERTSON, GROSVENOR, GOLD, and HULBERT.

The question was finally decided in the affirmative, as follows:
For re-consideration,

Against it,

81,

66.

And the House then struck out "New-York," and replaced Philadelphia. Mr. WRIGHT then moved to strike out Philadelphia, and insert Baltimore; which was decided in the negative.

Mr. RooT, after observing that the State of New York possesssed a considerable portion of United States' three per cent. stock, and wishing, as the Legislature of that State was now in session, if so disposed, to subscribe that stock in the bank, moved to insert the word "States." in the clause permiting companies or corporations to subscribe; which motion was agreed to.

Mr. WRIGHT moved to restore to Congress the power of increasing the capital of the bank to forty-five millions, [the clause which granted to Congress the power of increasing the capital to fifty millions, was stricken out, it will be recollected, in committee of the whole.] Mr. W. supported his motion with a variety of remarks on the impropriety of tying up the hands of the Government for twenty years, and prohibiting it by charter, from legislating ac cording to the growth of our population, the wants of the country, &c. He concluded by requiring the yeas and nays, which were refused; and then his proposition to amend the bill was rejected, only nine or ten rising in its favor.

Mr. WRIGHT, also, moved to strike out the word "individual," in the second line of the third section, and insert the word "citizen," as descriptive

of those who might subscribe for stock, but the question on the motion was determined in the negative.

Mr. M'LEAN, of Ky. rose to renew a motion which he had made without success, in committee of the whole, and which he should not again have offered, if he did not conceive that his former attempt had been decided under an incorrect view of the subject. Mr. M'LEAN then moved the following clause to the bill.

"Provided, That no branch shall be established in any State, unless such State shall authorize the same by law.”

Mr. M'LEAN supported his proposition at some length; showing, by facts, the injury which might result to some States, extensively interested in their own banks, by forcing a branch of the National Bank upon them. This was the case in Kentucky, where the State owned a great portion of the stock of the State bank, which was very prosperous, and its stocks very profitable; and Mr. M'L. said he was unwilling to put it in the power of any twenty-five men, to impose upon that State, without its consent, an institution which might be extremely prejudicial to its interests, &c.

Mr. CALHOUN replied briefly, that this motion appeared to involve an inquiry into the constitutional power of Congress to esablish banks in the States. This was a question which he had wished to avoid on the present occasion, and he should decline saying any thing on it. When the necessity arose for discussing the question, he should be prepared to meet it.

Mr. M'LEAN's motion was negatived, without a division.

Mr. PITKIN then proposed to amend the bill, by striking out entirely, the provision which gives the President and Senate the power of appointing five of the directors, and thereby leaving the whole of the direction to be chosen by the corporation.

Mr. P. went into a general investigation of this question, the arguments on which were so fully given when before the committee. In support of his motion, he said that, with all the interest of the Government in the old Bank of the United States, it appointed none of the directors, yet there was no complaint ever heard of the public concerns being mismanaged in that bank. If there was no necessity for exercising the power in that bank, he argued there was none for it in the present one. Neither the safe keeping of its deposites nor the care of its interest in the bank required the Government to possess the power, because there would necessarily always be a close connexion between the bank and the Government, produced by the strongest of motives, interest. If the power was not necessary for any useful purpose, he would not willingly risk any danger from the possibility of the power being converted into an engine of oppression, in the hands of the Government. He argued that it was probable that but few directors would be appointed in Philadelphia by the stockholders; that seven being sufficient to do business, and the Government directors being always on the spot, they might frequently constitute a majority of the board, and be able to wield the bank as they pleased. No man, he was confident, would embark his money in a banking concern, when one of the partners had the absolute appointment of one fifth of the directors. Mr. P. concluded by declaring that, if the provision he objected to was not stricken out, he should be compelled to vote against the bill.

Mr. CALHOUN rose, not to argue this motion, because it had been fully discussed in committee; but only to express his regret at the determination declared by Mr. PITKIN. He was aware that great difference of opinion existed on this subject, and that great difficulties must be encountered in maturing its details; but he had began to hope, from the concessions which had been made, that gentlemen would reconcile their various views, and that the bill would survive the conflicting opinions under which it started. It was therefore he regretted to hear Mr. P. declare the direction a sine qua non with him.