Newspapers / The Tarborough Southerner (Tarboro, … / July 31, 1832, edition 1 / Page 2
Part of The Tarborough Southerner (Tarboro, N.C.) / About this page
This page has errors
The date, title, or page description is wrong
This page has harmful content
This page contains sensitive or offensive material
It will make the American peo ple debtors to aliens in nearly the whole amount due to this Bank, and send across the At lantic from two to five millions of specie every year to pay the UaiiK dividends. In another of its bearings this provision is fraught with dan ger. Of the twenty-five direc tors of this Bank, five are cho sen by the Government, and twenty by the citizen stockhold ers. From all voice in these elections, the foreign stockhold ers are excluded by the charter. In proportion, therefore, as the stock is transferred to foreign holders, the extent of suffrage in "the choice of directors is cur tailed. Already is almost a third of the stock in foreign hands, and not represented in elections. It is constantly pas sing out of the country, and this net will accelerate its departure. The entire control of the insti tution would necessarily fall in to the hands of tho few citizen stockholders, and the ease with which the object would be ac complished, would be a temp tation to designing men to se cure that control in their own hands by monopol izing the re maining stock. There is dan ger that a President and Direc tors would then be able to elect themselves from year to year, and without responsibility or control, manage the whole con cerns of the Bank during the existence of its charter. It is easy to conceive that great evils to our country and its institu tions might flow from such a concentration of power in the hands of a few men irresponsi ble to the people. Is there no danger to our lib erty and independence in a Bank, that in its nature has so little to bind it to our country'! The President of the B ank has told us, that most of the State Banks exist by its forbearance. Should its influence become concentred, as it may, under the operation of such an act as this in the hands of a self-elected Directory whose interests nrc identified with that of the for eign stockholder, will there not because to tremble for the pu rity of our elections in peace, and for the independence of our country in war? Their power would be great whenever they might choose to exert it; but if this monopoly were regularly renewed every fifteen or twenty years, on terms proposed by themselves, they might seldom, in peace, put forth their strength to influence elections or control the affairs of the nation. But, if any private citizen, or public functionary should interpose to curtail its powers or prevent a renewal of its privileges, it can not be doubted that he would be made to feel its influence. Should the stock of the Bank principally pass into the hands ol the subjects of a foreign country, and we should unfortu nately become involved in a war with that country, wh.it wonl.l be our condition? Ofthccourse winch would be pursued by a Bank almost wholly ownn.l i, the subjects of n foreign power and managed by those whose interests, it not affections, would run in the same direction, there can be no doubt. All its onnm. tionc within, would be in aid of tno hostile fleets and armies without; controlling ourcurren cy; receiving our nublic tnnnnve and holding thousands of our Jinzcns in dependance, it would " m7rc; Kmmdable and dan Rcroua xnm the d wy pow.r of the enemv If wo must have a Bank with private stockholders, every con sideration of sound policy, and every impulse of American feel ing, admonishes that it should be purely American. I ts stock holders should be composed ex clusively of our own citizens, who, at least, ought to be friend ly to our government, and will ing to support it in times of dif ficulty and danger. .So abun dant is domestic 'capital, that competition, in subscribing for the slock of local banks, has re cently led almost to riots. To a Bank, exclusively of Ameri can stockholders, possessing the powers and privileges gran ted by this act, subscriptions for two hundred millions of dol lars, could be readily obtained. Instead of sending abroad the stock of the Bank, in which the Government must deposit its funds, and on which it must re ly to sustain its credit in times of emergency, it would rather seem to be expedient to prohibit its sale to aliens under penalty of absolute forfeiture. It is maintained by the advo cates of the Bank that its con stitutionality in all its features ought to be considered as set tled by precedent, and by the decision of the Supreme Court. To this conclusion, I cannot as sent. Mere precedent is a dan gerous source of authority, and should not be regarded as deci ding questions of constitutional power, except where the acqui escence of the people and the States can be considered as well settled. So far from this being the case on this subject, an argument against the Bank might be based on precedent. One Congress in 1791 decided in favor of a Bank; another in 1811 decided against it. One Congress in 1815 decided a gainst a Bank, another in 1816 decided in its favor. Prior to the present Congress, therefore, the precedents drawn from that source were equal. If we resort to the States, the expressions of Legislative, Judicial and Exe cutive opinions against the Bank have been probably to those in its favor, as four to one. There is nothing in precedent, there fore, which, if its authority were admitted, ought to weigh in fa vor of the act before me. If the opinion of the Supreme oourt covered the whole ground of this act, it ought not to con trol the co-ordinate authorities of this Government. The Con gress, the Executive, and the Court, must each for itself, be guided by its own opinion of the Constitution. Each public officer who takes an oath to support the Constitution, swears that he will sun- port it as he understands it, and not as it is understood by others. It is as much the dutv of the House of Representa tives, of the Senate, and of the President to decide upon the constitutionality of any bill or resolution which may be pre sented to them for passage or approval, as it is of the Supreme Judges when it may be brought before them for judicial deci sion. The opinion of the Judges has no more authority over Congress than the opinion of Congress has over the Judg es, and on that point the Presi dent is independent of both. The authority of the Supreme Court must not, therefore, be permitted to control the Con gress or the Executive, when acting in their legislative capa cities, but to hffve only such in fluence as the force of their reasoning may deserve. But in the case relied upon, the Supreme Court have not de cided that all the features of this corporation arc compatible with the Constitution. It is true that the Court have said that the law incorporating the Batik is a con stitutional exercise of power by Congress. But, taking into view tho whole opinion of the Court, and tho reasoning by which they have come to that conclusion, I understand them to have decided that, inasmuch as a Bank is an appropriate means for carrying into effect the enumerated powers of the General Government, therefore, the law incorporating it is in accordance with that provision of the Constitution which de clares that Congress shall have power "to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying those powers into execution. Having satisfied themselves, that the word uc- ccssary in the Constitution, means "needful," "requisite," "essential" "conducive to" and that "a Bank" is a convenient, a useful and essential instru ment in the prosecution of the Government's "fiscal opera tions, they conclude, that to "use one must be within the discretion of Congress," and that "the act to incorporate the bank of tho United States is a aw made in pursuance of the Constitution:" "but" say they, ,iviere the law is not prohibited and is really calculated to effect any of the objects entrusted to the Govern ment, to under take here to enquire' into the degree of its necessity, would be to pass the line which cir cumscribes the Judicial Department and to tread on Legislative ground." The principle here affirmed' is that "the degree of its neces sity," involving all the details of a Banking institution, is a ques tion exclusively for legislative consideration. " A Bank is con stitutional; but it is the province of tin- Legislature In dot rminn whether tbCr that particular power, prlege or exemption, is "necessary and proper" to enable the Bank to discharge its duties to the Government, and from their decision there is no appeal to the Courts of jus- lice. Under the decision of the Supreme Court, therefore, it is the exclusive province of Con gress and the President to de cide, whether the particular fea tures of this act are "necessary and proper," in order to enable the Bank to perform conveni ently and efficiently the public duties assigned to it as a fiscal agent, and therefore constitu tional, or unnecessary and im proper, and therefore unconsti tutional. Without commenting on the general principle affirmed by the Supreme Court, let us exa mine the details of this act in accordance with the rule of le gislative action which they have laid down. It will be "found that many of the powers and privileges conferred on it, cannot be supposed necessary for the purpose for which it is supposed to be created, and arc not there fore means necessary to attain the end in view, &, consequently not justified by the Constitution. The original act of corpora tion, section 21, enacts "that no other Bank shall be established by any future law of the United States during the continuance of the corporation hereby crea ted, for which the faith of the United Slates is hereby pledg ed, Provided, Congress may re new existing charters for Banks within the District of Columbia, not increasing the capital there of, and may also establish any other Bank or Banks in said District, with capitals not ex ceeding in the whole six mil lions of dollars if they ehali deem it expedient." This pro-, vision is continued in force, by the act before me, fifteen years from the 3d of March, 183G. If Congress possessed the power to establish one Bank, they had power to establish more than one, if, in their opi nion, two or more Banks, had been "necessary" to facilitate the execution of the powers de legated to them in the Consti tution. If they possessed the power to establish a second Bank, it was a power derived from the Constitution, to be ex ercised from time to time, and at any time when the interests of the country or the emergen cies of the Government might make it expedient. It was pos sessed by one Congress as well as another, and by all Cpngres ses alike, and alike at every ses sion. But the Congress of 1816 has taken it away from their successors for twenty years, and the Congress of 1832 proposes to abolish it for fifteen years more. It cannot be "ne cessary" or "proper" for Con gress to barter away or divest themselves of any of the powers, vested in them by the Constitu tion, to be exercised for the public good. It is not "neccs- sary to the efficiency of the Bank, nor is it "proper" in re lation to themselves and their successors. They may proper ly use the discret ion vested in them; but they may not limit tne discretion of their succes sors. 1 Ins restriction on them selves and grant of a monopoly to the Bank, is, therefore, un constitutional. continued in our next.) Communications TOR THIS FRKE TRESS. Mr. Iloicard: In the Free Press of the 24th inst. 1 observe a communication over the sig nature of "A Voter," addressed to the freemen of Nash county the ostensible object of which is to prevent the re-election of Mr. BODD1E to the Senate of the btate Legislature, which of fice he has filled for many years, and has been an honest, faith ful and able representative. As this address may be a "vir gin effort" of "A Voter," and I judge so from the puerility of its style and language charity would seem to require that it should be handled lightly and tenderly; but, Sir, the object aimed at by the writer in this case, I think should deprive him of the benefit of that virtue, and I shall therefore proceed to treat his effusion as it deserves. Mr. Boddie, it appears ac cording to this writer, has com mitted a great and unpardona ble sin by voting, in the dis charge of his official duty as a member of the Court, for the building of a new fire-proof Court House in the county of Nash. Mr: B. has given his reasons for his vote, which to every unprejudiced, liberal and intelligent mind satisfactory. "A Voter" wishes to induce the people of Nash to believe that they arc taxed without their consent and that Mr. B. alone is answernhlo duct of the whoIeCourt in rein tion to the building of the Court House Why is this attack aimed directly at Mr. B.? Is he alone to be sacrificed? and are we to be deprived of his valuable services in the Legislature merely because he voted, in the discharge of his official duty as magistrate, for the building of u new Court Mouse The people of Nash taxed without their consent! wonderful discovery indeed!! "'Tis strange, 'tis pas sing strange, 'tis pitiful, 'tis wondrous pitiful," that the peo. pie of Nash should rest so lono "in ignorance of their opprcs sions, until this great man in Is rael rose up and proclaimed it to them. "O Jew! an unri..u. judge, a learned judge! A scc- onu ianiei: a Haniel, still say, a second Daniel" has risen up amoug us to discover the de. feets in the laws from which the magistrates of the county derive their authority. The writer in vokes the aid of the spirits of '7G to assist him in his denun ciation of the tyrannical and op pressive act, of which ii and the rest of the Court were guilty, in voting for the buildincr of a new Court House. This is characteristic of that princi ple of "exclusive republicanism'1 which is manifested in every pa ragraph of his address from be ginning to end. As to tle principle of taxation, I can per ceive no analogy whatever. Our forefathers worn rnvoiV.. the Lntish government not on ly without their consent, but without their being represented in the British Parliament tins was taxation without represent ation they had no voice in the matter at all but in the other case, the people of Nash have a voice if i (;y arc not represen ted directly by the munisirntpst of the counfy, they are indirect ly they arc represented by tho Lenislature which has the pow er of appointing the magistrates. The writer goes on to argue that it is not necessary to build a fire-proof Court House, "he- cause," says he, "it is possible that the documents may be burnt by accident or design." I thanc the writer for this argument, and will say that it is the stron gest that can be urged in behalf of the Court House. The "in dulgence of county pride" seems to stick in "A Voter's" throat, and really, it would seem from his long tirade, and heaving and setting that it was about to choke him his "trusty friend, Economy," however, with the aid of a passage of scripture may enable him to extricate himself but economy is one thing and parsimony another, and I am not sure but this "trus ty friend," on whose arm "A Voter" leans with so much con fidence, is parsimony clothed in economy's garb. "Mark vou this,B assanio, the devil can cite scripture for his purpose." The effusion of "A Voter" evidently emanated from a mind laboring under a morbid sensi bility at least one of ihe facul ties of his mind is not exactly in a sane condition, for he ima gines that our rights and liber ties have been invaded and trampled upon indeed accord ing to his own showing, we are already at war! for says he, "but for this.diabolical stimulus (county pride) to pomp and pa rade, to extravagance? and show. we should now be in harmony and peace, like a band of bro thers." Then are we already at war! or is this "Voter" (who by the by I should judge to be a descendant of the hero of Sala manca, or one brought up in the school of knight-errantry) fighting a "windmill!" or is he preparing to attack a flock of sheep? I should judge from the cloud of dust which he has kicked up that there was some thing in the wind. It is to be hoped that he or his "squiro"
The Tarborough Southerner (Tarboro, N.C.)
Standardized title groups preceding, succeeding, and alternate titles together.
July 31, 1832, edition 1
2
Click "Submit" to request a review of this page. NCDHC staff will check .
0 / 75