The Congressional Globe, Volume 14: Twenty-Eighth Congress, Second Session Page: 55
This legislative document is part of the collection entitled: Congressional Globe and was provided to The Portal to Texas History by the UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE.
65
posites, - and the placing of them in such4deposito-
ries as lie pleased—whether of irresponsible corpora-
tions or of individuals. Millions were now thus re-
moved from one part of the ct unlry to another, by
the mere dictum of the executive, who had made an
intimation in his annual communication to Congress
that the favor of these deposites would be taken
away, when the conduct of the depositaries was not
such as he should approve. He had hoped that,
under existing circumstances, the gentlemen in op-
position would have allowed this bill to pass with as
little debate as they permitted their hasty repeal bill
f@ be enacted into a law.
Mr. BARNARD confessed that he was aston-
ished by the remarks of the gentleman from Vir-
ginia. The gentleman was a lawyer, and was cer-
tainly able to understand the plain and intelligible
• argument of the gentleman from Massachusetts.
And what was it? Why, the gentleman from Mas-
sachusetts raised the grave objection to this bill, that
it proposed by law to repeal a provision of the con-
stitution. And how had the gentleman from Vir-
ginia met it? The gentleman from Massachusetts
had told them that, by this bill, it was proposed to
make a particular building in this city the treasury
of the United States, while, at the same time, it was
proposed to deposite the public moneys all over the
country, which the gentleman from Virginia told
.them were to be deposited to the credit of the Treas-
urer of the United States; while the treasury, by this
"bill, was a particular building. And this was the
logic with which the grave objection of the gentle-
man from Massachusetts was met. He asked the
gentleman from Virginia, and every other gentle-
man on this floor, if the objection of the gentleman
from Massachusetts was not a weighty one? If it
was not true, on the very face of the bill, that they
proposed to have large sums of money deposited
from time to time in various places in this country,
which, in the terms of the bill, are not the treasury
of the United States. What then became of the
terms of the constitution, which required that no
money should be drawn out of the treasury
but by the operation of law? Suppose it 1
should so happen that, in the progress of
corruption in this country—and there was no man
of the present day that did not know that this coun-
try was* progressing faster in corruption than in
anything else. Suppose, in the progress of this
country, they had a chief magistrate who, for his
own purpose, or the purposes of a party, laid his
hand on some portion of the public money in one
of these depositories, without authority of law:
could they impeach him? He would perhaps ap-
peal to his good motive, and they could not impeach
-him for a violation of the constitution; for he would
have taken money which never had been in the
treasury at all. Here, then, was a suggestion made
by the gentleman from Massachusetts in good faith,
not to the passage of the bill, but to a particular sec-
tion in the bill. But they had had a further remark
from the gentleman from Virginia, the purport of
which was that the people had passed on this ques-
tion; and, therefore, that \t did not become the gen-
tleman from Massachusetts, orany other gentleman,
to delay this measure long enough even to strike
out an obnoxious feature of the bill. The gentle-
man said this issue was presented in the late presi-
dential contest, and that the people then passed upon
it. Did the gentleman from Virginia present this
issue, either in his State or on this floor during the
last session? He (Mr. B.) thought not. Did tney
not all remember the history of the last session?
Did the gentleman from Virginia move in this mat-
ter then? He got the Committee of Ways and
Means to introduce this bill at an early stage of tne
session, and he was afterwards asked repeatedly
from various quarters of this House to call it up;
but the gentleman from Virginia never could find
lime to do so during the whole of that session.
And every body knew that this sub-treasury was
not one of the issues of the late election; they had
not dared to make it an issue. They had been
beaten upon it before, and they were afraid of Ving
beaten again; and yet the gentleman from Virginia
said it was one of the issues passed upon by the peo-
ple. Certainly he had a ftrong curiosity to know
what had been decided at the late election. What
was decided? Was it the tariff? Was it annexations
The sub-treasury? He was not disposed to travel
out of the record; but if there was any subject which
had heretofore agitated the public mind, which had
been carefully kept out of view, this was one.
There might be sections where the democratic par-
had thought it would do to touch the subject, but
he would venture to say that it was the case in v®j*y
few sections of the country. Nevertheless, after the
gentleman from Virginia had repeatedly dochned to
bring up this bill at the last session, he now pro-
posed to regard it na one of the issues that had al-
ready been passed upon, and that the people had de-
cided in its favor! ...
Mr. B. concluded by expressing the hope that it
this bill did pass, an amendment would be adopted
to obviate this very important objection.
Mr. C. J. INGERSOLL inquired if the gentle-
man from Massachusetts had moved an amendment
to strike out the first section of the bill?
The CHAIRMAN replied-in the negative.
Mr. ADAMS said he would move to strike out
the .first section of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN ruled the amendment out of
order, and announced that the question was on rising
and reporting the bill.
Mr. C. J. INGERSOLL regretted the decision of
the Chair, because it appeared to him that the ob-
jection of the gentleman from Massachusetts, and
every other objection, were all deserving of serious
consideration. He thought there could not be two
opinions on the position, that owing to the repeal of
the sub-treasury act, the public moneys for four years
past had been in a very perilous condition. And
while he would not say anything more of the issues
made during the presidential election than was ne-
cessary, yet he did believe that the public mind had
become abundantly satisfied before, during, and
since the presidential election, and at all times, that
the public moneys should no longer_ be intrusted,
either to banking or to individual iustodies, but
should in some way or other be placed in the treasu-
ry of the United States; and he begged leave to call
the attention of the House to one of the first chap-
ters in the statute book. He had heard it said that
it would be a very good thing, every morning after
prayers, to have a chapter from the "Federalist"
read; and he had no doubt it would be, because
there were very many fundamental truths which
escaped every man's mind in the excitement and
confusion of business here. Mr. I. referred to the
fourth section of the act of 1789, establishing the
Treasury Department of the United States, which
makes-it "the duty of the Treasurer of the United
States to receive and keep the public moneys and
disburse the same," on conditions therein laid down.
The Treasurer of the United States, then, as this
government was organized, was keeper of the pub-
lic money; and it was not until the fast Secretary of
the Treasury thought proper to intrust a portion of
the public moneys to banks, that such a thing was
dreamed of as the public moneys being taken out
of the hands of the treasurer. Mr. I. glanced at the
subseauent financial history of the government, the
deposit of the public moneys in the first and second
banks of the United States, &c., and the controver-
sies that had ensued between the banks and the sub-
treasury, and which, contrary to the opinion of
the honorable gentleman from New York,
[Mr. Barnard,]' he must say declared the
sentiment of the people to be perfectly clear
that the public moneys should no longer be placed
either in the hands of individuals or of banks, but
be placed where the organic act of the department
had placed them. Now, whether the objection of
the gentleman from Massachusetts was well founded
or not, he was really not prepared to say. He con-
fessed he felt some doubt on the subject. If it was
the fact, it would undoubtedly be a formidable ob-
jection to this bill. He had no objection to the prin-
ciple of this bill; on the contrary, he was, and at all
times had been, one of its most earnest supporters.
That the currency of the country should be of coin,
and that the custody of the public moneys should
be in the treasury of the United States, wherever
that treasury might be, were principles upon which
he did thi.-k the public mind was abundantly satis-
fied; and that no bank of the United States, no bank
of any State, no individual anywhere, should be in-
truste'l with these public moneys, were principles on
which he thought the public mind was abund nt!y
satisfied. Mr. I. referred to the fact that the insti-
tutions upon this subject in France, in Belgium, in
Holland,"and everywhere where there was anything
like a representative go's ernment, except in England,
were founded 011 the same principle as that which
was the fundamental principle of tl 8 bill. And
m England, where, from various cau3ts, the bank
had o-i-own into connection with the government,
everybody whS heard him knew that the prime min-
isterwas at this moment introducing an alteration.
Everywhere in the world the public money was
kent by persons designated for that puroose.
Mr. I. referring to the objection by Mr. Adams
to the bill, said he did not pretend to pronounce
that it was not well founded. He had risen merely
to say, that he hoped the utmost care would be.
taken to prevent any such liability to objections m
any system which might be established by law;
and he suggested whether some trivial amendment*
might not be made to obviate all objections on thin
score. He trusted that, in whatever action might
take place, there would be incorporated no section
or provision of doubtful character. His own im-
pression was, that there had been rather more ma-
chinery used in this matter of the Pu^-m0?®y®
than was necessary; that the act of 1 (89, t^ the
resolution of 1&16, with some little modifications
or additional provisions to suit the present P°stur®
of affairs, was all that was necessary; but he should
not individually oppose an objection to the passage
ofa well-considered, well-digested, bill ofthis char-
aCMr JOS. R. INGERSOLL, would offer a word
or two upon this, bill; and he went further, as to the
principles laid down by the honorable gentleman
from Massachusetts, [Mr. Adams,] than either tha
gentleman himself or the gentleman from New
York, [Mr. Barnard.] Mr. i. would lay it down
as a sound position, that every dollar lawfully
paid into the hands of anybody for the United States
was, ipso facto, in the treasury of the United State.,
and that whatever declared otherwise, would throw
open the door to fraud and surreptitious conduct 011
the part of public depositaries, the history of all
fiscal agencies very abundantly confirmed and ex-
emplified. The constitution of the United States
had reference to a treasury of the United States,
and it declared that no moneys should be drawn
from it unless in consequence of appropriations by
law and yet for a series of years the national legis-
lature had deemed it proper to appropriate moneys
which were in the hands of its receivers all over the.
country, and not those only which were deposited
here at the seat of government. All treasury or-
ganization was congressional, not constitutional,
was true there was an outline drawn at a very ear-
ly day by the "act of 1789; but the treasury of the
United States, according to the constitution, was
the hand, the pocket, the desk, the safe, the vault,
the chamber, or any thing else employed by hint
for the-purpose, of the receiver of public money.
The moment it was paid by any public debtor to
any authorized public receiver, that moment it was
in the treasury, in the sense of the constitution; and
it could not be drawn thence but in consequence of
appropriation by law. And therefore, as the bill
now before the committee contained a claim of an
immediately opposite character, he hoped the bill
would not be reported to the House, unless, as had
often been done, with a recommendation that it do
not pass. ,
But Mr. I. would occupy a moment on another
topic touched by the gentleman from Virginia.^ Mr.
I. knew of no such issue before the people m the
late presidential election as that between a sub-
treasury and a bank of the United States. It was
very true that such an issue had once been present-
ed to them four years ago. It was then a prominent
and a decisive issue. If there was any one single
question on which the election of 1840 could be said
to have turned, it was that of this very sub-treasury
bill. In consequenee of the result, the bill had been
repealed. The public moneys had been suffered to
revert to the care of the treasurer of the United
States, and no injurious consequences had followed
the change. The resort had been either to a selec-
tion of banks, or to an exchequer, or to the sub-
treasury. Of these he apprehended the sub-treasury
to be the worst, the very worst scheme that ever yet
had been devised for the custody of the. national
funds, and it certainly had received the almost
unanimous condemnation of the people. What naa
been the fault of a selection of banks? Ine fault
did not lay in the insecurity of their vaults; it lay in
the fact that they weie pet banks, and not that they
were banks. It was enough to say that there had
been banks enough where the public money might
have been kept with perfect safety; yet banks had
been selected where it could not be deposited with
even tolerable safety. But, as he had said, he knew
of no issue presented at this last election between
the sub-treasury and a bank of the United States.
It was very true that, although in one of the dis-
tricts in Philadelphia the democratic flag had shown
the name of Polk as an advocate of protection, it
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This document can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Legislative Document.
United States. Congress. The Congressional Globe, Volume 14: Twenty-Eighth Congress, Second Session, legislative document, 1845; Washington D.C.. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth2366/m1/71/?rotate=270: accessed April 25, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.