USA > Georgia > The bench and bar of Georgia: memoirs and sketches. With an appendix, containing a court roll from 1790-1857, etc., volume I > Part 19
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44 | Part 45 | Part 46 | Part 47 | Part 48 | Part 49 | Part 50 | Part 51 | Part 52 | Part 53 | Part 54 | Part 55 | Part 56 | Part 57
Denouncing the bank and the Tariff conjointly, and scanning with rigor the operation of both, Judge Clayton thus proceeded :-
When the old Bank of the United States wound up its business and made a final division, each stockholder had returned to him not only the amount of his shares, with eight per cent. interest per annum for the whole period of its incorporation, but he had paid to him one hundred dollars to the share besides; that is, his money was doubled, exclusive of the interest. There is no manner of doubt that such would be the result at the expiration of the present charter. This double amount would soon be vested in other stock, and their means of support consequently increased one hundred per cent. And, Mr. Speaker, this would be no common support, either; for I find, upon examining the list of stock- holders, there are upward of forty widows who own ten thousand dollars each, and several as high as fifty thousand. Concerning these last I hope the gentleman [Mr. MeDuffie ] will give himself no uneasiness ; for they can assure him, in any event of the Bank question, they will remain pretty good game for the pursuit of ANY WIDOWER whatever. But, sir, while he is manifesting such sensibility for those destitute persons, let me shade his portrait a little by a sombre color which I can employ from another class of stockholders in this same bank. The real stockholders are not American widows and orphans, but British lords and ladies, British naval and military officers, British clergymen and country squires; and, sir, for your exquisite delight, permit me to read a few of their names :-
Baring, Brothers & Co., London. $791,500
The Most Honorable the Marquis of Hertford. 100,300
The Right Honorable Sarah, Countess-Dowager of Castle Stuart. 10,000
Sir Colin Campbell and Sir Richard Hunter. 37,100
Right Honorable Lord Henry Viscount Gage. 12,000
Honorable Hudson Gurney, Member of Parliament 50,000
Sir Robert Harvey. 19,500
158
BENCH AND BAR OF GEORGIA.
Sir William Keppel, General in his British Majesty's forces,
Knight of the Grand Cross of the Order of the Bath.
$72,200
Major-General Maister. 9,000
Sir George Nugent, Baronet. 20,000
J. Packwood, of the Royal Navy.
8,000
Sir Marmaduke Warren Peacock, Lieutenant-General, &c.
50,000
The Earl of Beauchamp.
15,000
Sir Gilbert Sterling. 10,000
Lady Sarah Stuart.
31,300
Sir Grenville Temple.
20,000
Augusta, Countess-Dowager Von Pollant
4,200
The Earl of Levin.
50,000
Major-General Mac Donald.
64,900
Lieutenant-General Sir Thomas Bradford.
4,000
Sir William Keith Ball, Baronet.
30,000
Lord Eric Reery
60,000
Mrs. Ann Redfern
70,160
Abel Smith, Esq ..
100,000
Jonathan Austin, Esq.
120,000
Major William Davis.
20,000
Reverend Arthur Dean
7,000
Reverend Philip Fletcher
20,000
Reverend George Gordon
30,100
Mr. Benjamin Heywood.
178,400
John Marshall, (London).
123,600
James Drake
100,000
John Marshall.
264,200
Lieutenant-Colonel John Maxwell
64,900
Sir Robert Wilson
15,000
Lady Rosabella Wilson
15,000
And last, though not least, Mrs. Candelaria Bell, $63,700, whose fanci- ful and beautiful name I hope will be remembered by some gentleman of the turf when he comes to christen his next female racer. In all, upward of four hundred in number, and holding stock to the amount of eight and a half millions, besides what is in the hands of trustees.
After alleging great corruptions against the bank, and charging it with interference in elections, Judge Clayton closed his speech as follows :-
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I offer one more reflection. It is aptly said, by some writer, that the financial system of this country represents an inverted pyramid. Six thousand millions of property, and all the enterprises and interchanges of the country, resting upon sixty millions paper dollars, which are themselves depending upon about fifteen millions of specie. And all this under the exclusive control of one grand, regu- lating, central machine, whose whole operations, and all its immense profits, belong to a highly-favored few. I have done for the present ; but the half has not been told which belongs to this important subject.
The resolution offered by Judge Clayton prevailed, to raise a select committee to examine the affairs of the bank; and he was
Sir Edward Tucker 50,200
159
AUGUSTIN S. CLAYTON.
appointed chairman. In this capacity he performed a great deal of labor, and, after an inspection of the books and papers of the bank, he reported a mass of facts to Congress, with the evidence he had taken in the support of his charges against that institution. In the mean time, Congress had passed the bill to recharter the bank, which incurred the Presidential veto on the 10th of July, 1832.
In September, 1833, President Jackson issued his famous Cabi- net order for the removal of the public deposits to the State banks which had been selected for that purpose. This measure met the warm approbation of Judge Clayton, who had been re-elected to the House of Representatives after his special term had expired. As it is generally known that, in his anonymous communications to the press, he was in the habit of using the signature of "Atticus," and as no other writer would likely usurp a name so exclusively the right of one who had given it celebrity by his genius, it is fair to presume that the following, which appeared in the Georgia Journal of May 14, 1834, was from the pen of Judge Clayton :-
"'Tis strange, I vow, what difference be 'Twixt tweedle-dum and tweedle-dee."
It is an old but true saying, that " give a dog a bad name and you might as well hang him." In December, 1832, President Jackson issued a proclamation, containing certain political principles highly obnoxious to the Republican party of the South. Since that time, he has been unable to do any thing which can meet the approbation of certain politicians who have dubbed themselves with the proud distinction and honorable appellation of . State-Rights men. He has been denounced as a tyrant, cursed as a traitor, stigmatized as a usurper, and, in turn, borne every epithet which the vocabulary of Billingsgate could furnish. Recently the torrent of in- vective has been let loose with tenfold impetuosity. For the performance of an aet which he conceived was imperative upon him by his oath of office, he has been held up to publie odium, by men infinitely his infe- riors in moral or political honesty, as the reckless invader of the people's rights, the vile murderer of their interests, and the petty, factious tyrant who would overwhelm his country in ruin to gratify private hatred or promote unhallowed ambition. And who are the chief men that have thus poured forth such a torrent of abuse? Henry Clay, John C. Cal- houn, George MeDuffie. And what is the act for which he has thus been abused ? The removal of the public money from the vaults of the Bank of the United States to those of the State banks,-such an act as has oftentimes before been done without a word of complaint from any quar- ter; such an act as was absolutely necessary for the well-being of the Government and the people; such an act as every patriot approves; such an act as would have been commended by all and objected to by only the bank and a few of its bought-up presses, if the ambition of Clay and Calhoun had not made it a stepping stone for their ascension to the Presi- deney. Upon their heads, and their heads alone, falls all the injury the country has sustained, or will sustain, from the act.
160
BENCH AND BAR OF GEORGIA.
We have heard it proclaimed from the Senate and from the House of Representatives in Congress, and reiterated by the press throughout the country, that the President had seized upon the public money, appro- priated it without law and against law, and that it was now under his control, to be disposed of as his ambition or avarice might dictate. Never was there a charge more utterly false. Not one cent has been appro- priated against the laws of Congress, nor has the President any further or greater control over it now than he has always had : his only aet has been to say to the collectors of the public revenue, When you shall receive any money of the Government, deposit it in some certain State bank for safe-keeping until the Government shall call for it, instead of placing it in some branch of the United States Bank. A brief statement of the facts is alone wanting to put down effectually the malicious charges which have been heaped upon the character of the President for this act. By law, the public money is required to be deposited in the United States Bank, or its branches, until the Secretary of the Treasury shall otherwise direct ; and, when he shall so direct, it is made his duty to communicate his reasons for the act to Congress.
At the last session of that body, so apparent was the necessity of removing these deposits from the United States Bank and placing them in the State banks, that a very large minority of the House of Representatives voted instructions to the Secretary to do so,-though they had no right to say a word to him on the subject; and all the delegation from Georgia, (we speak from memory, ) save Mr. Wilde, voted for those instructions.
The reasons which induced them to give this vote were :-
1. The bank had interfered in the Presidential election by in- creasing its loans from January, 1831, to May, 1832, from 842,000,000 to $70,000,000, and that immediately before the election,-thus making a large number of people dependent upon and indebted to it, threatening them with ruin if the bank was not rechartered, petitioning Congress at that time for a renewal of the charter, compelling the President to veto the bill and thereby make as enemies those who were indebted to the bank. For such an interference in elections, Mr. McDuffie advised, in his celebrated bank report in 1830, that the " public deposits should be removed." He now acts differently.
2. The termination of the bank charter at a short day rendered it necessary that the Government should begin another system of finance, for the purpose of carrying on its transactions so as not to embarrass the . people to any extent. This was the plan adopted in 1811, when the old bank charter expired; and so happily did it succeed, that not the slightest embarrassment was felt. The President was not then denounced as a usurper.
3. The bank had become so much embarrassed, on account of its heavy expenditure of money in the Presidential election, that it could not pay to the Government the money which had been deposited in its vaults for safe-keeping. The Government was owing-and the money would be due at a certain time-85,000,000. In order to meet the debt, the moucy was collected and deposited in the bank. The bank converted it to its own use : when the time arrived, it was unable to pay it, but peti- tioned for the use for six months, it paying the interest thereon. The in- dulgence was granted : when the time arrived, the money still could not be paid. The Government would wait no longer; but the bank, to get further indulgence, induced the creditors of the Government not to pre-
161
AUGUSTIN S. CLAYTON.
sent their demands, and paid the interest upon them for the indulgence. If one individual had treated another in this way, would the one thus treated have put his money in the hands of the other a second time?
4. It bought up printing-presses, and loaned large sums of money to editors who were insolvent, without any kind of security, for the purpose of getting their support.
5. The bank authorized its President to expend whatever amount of money he thought proper in having printed and circulated such news- papers and pamphlets as would help to obtain a renewal of its charter; and, in 1831 and 1832, he expended for that purpose the enormous sum of $80,000.
6. The charter forbid the bank from doing business with less than seven directors : in violation of the law, it did business continually with only five directors.
7. The Government is a large stockholder; and, for the purpose of knowing what is going on, and protecting its interests, it was entitled to five directors. In order, however, to defeat the intention of the law, and to conceal its illegal acts, the bank excluded them from any knowledge whatever of its transactions.
After the adjournment of Congress, another act, more perfidious than any which had taken place before, was committed by the bank. Accord- ing to its charter, in consideration of the monopoly which it enjoyed, the bank was bound to transfer the funds of the Government wherever they might be required to be placed. The Government of France, according to a treaty with our own, was called upon to pay $900,000. The Scere- tary of the Treasury drew a bill of exchange upon the French Government for that amount : the bank discounted it; but every cent of the money was left with the bank and used by it. The bank sold the bill, for a profit, in London ; the purchaser presented the bill for payment to the Government of France, which was refused, from the want of funds to meet it ; the agent of the bank in Paris paid the money and took up the bill, and the President of the bank at Philadelphia then demanded from the Government of the United States $158,000 as damages which it had sustained by the failure of Franee to meet the engagement punctually. The bank bought the bill without advancing one cent for it, made its profits on it, and then took up the bill with the same money it had sold it for. This stupendous fraud upon the people determined the President. among other reasons, to remove the deposits. But it may be said that the Secretary alone could remove them. This the Secretary has done, and communicated his reasons to Congress. But it may be regarded as the act of the President : he wishes it to be so regarded. He is sworn to see the laws faithfully executed : the Secretary refused to execute them faithfully; the President removed him from office, and placed another there who would do so.
It is contended that the President had not the power to remove Mr. Duane from office. He certainly had the power to appoint him; and it follows, as a matter of course, if he could appoint, and was responsible for his acts while in office, he could remove him. Such has been the prac- tice since the establishment of the Government : every administration has removed such from office as even differed in opinion with them, ani it Has never before been complained of. Mr. Duane deserves less pity for his eviction from office than any other man. He accepted the appoint- ment of Secretary under a full knowledge of the intention of the adminis-
V .... ! -- 11
162
BENCH AND BAR OF GEORGIA.
tration in reference to the deposits, and stated to the President, should his own opinion not agree with the administration, he would either resign or remove them as an executive order or act. But when called upon, notwithstanding the bank had most insultingly outraged the laws, and he pledged to the President to do so, he both refused to remove the deposits or to resign. The President owed it to the country to have no such dis- honorable man in his Cabinet. He was therefore removed. The only thing which remained to be complained of is that the act was unprecc- dented. Is this so ? No less than five Secretaries have done similar acts. During the administration of Gen. Washington, Mr. Hamilton, Secretary of the Treasury, made his deposits not only in State banks, but even made the breeches-pocket of Mr. Habersham, of Georgia, the depository of the public money collected in this State.
In February, 1811, Mr. Gallatin, Secretary, removed the deposits from the old United States Bank to the State banks; and the only reason he assigned was, that, the charter being about to expire, such a course was necessary for the well-being of the Government. Congress sustained his reasons.
In December, 1815, Mr. Dallas, Secretary, makes his deposits in the State banks.
In December, 1819, Mr. Crawford withdrew the deposits, in part, from the United States Bank and placed them in the State banks.
In May, 1817, he refused to deposit in the United States Bank, because it would not receive the bills of certain local banks in Virginia. In the same year he made large deposits in the Bank of Vincennes, and in other Western banks. In 1819, he selected three State banks situated in places where there were branches of the United States Bank, and deposited in them. From March, 1817, to October, 1821, he transferred funds from the United States Bank and deposited them in forty-eight State and local banks.
In August, 1825, Mr. Rush, Secretary, under Mr. Adams, made his deposits in the Bank of Mobile, directly under the eye of the United States Bank.
In August, 1827, he drew money from the United States Branch Bank at Washington City, and deposited it in the Bank of Tennessee.
In November, 1828, he selected and deposited in sixteen different banks.
In February, 1830, Mr. Ingham, Secretary, made deposits in the Bank of New Haven.
In June, 1830, he drew $10,000 from the bank at New Orleans, and deposited it in the Bank of Mississippi, at Natchez.
In October, 1832, Mr. McLane, Secretary, deposited both in the Bank of Alexandria and the Mechanics' Bank of Alexandria.
Now, if the Secretaries had the power to remove one dollar of the de- posits, they had the right to remove all. The removals to which we have referred were never objected to, but always regarded as perfectly legal. Mr. Crawford, it is true, was assailed and basely slandered for the acts to which we have referred. Ninian Edwards was the instrument in the hands of Mr. Calhoun to attack him. The reason for that attack was obvious when Mr. Calhoun wished to put him out of his way to the Presidency. Congress and the people passed upon the act, and both acquitted him. It is a singular coincidence, that the only two persons who have ever been assailed for removing the deposits were Messrs. Craw-
163
AUGUSTIN S. CLAYTON.
ford and Jackson, their chief accuser Mr. Calhoun, and both these gentlemen formidable rivals and powerful opponents to his ascension to the Presidency. Just look on the history of this question, and tell me if
" 'Tis not strango what difference be 'Twixt tweedle-dum and tweedle-dee "?
ATTICUS.
It has been considered necessary to place these extracts before the public, to show the position maintained by Judge Clayton, on the two exciting measures in which he acted a prominent part in Congress,-the Tariff and Bank. In order that his opinions may also be understood relative to the Public Lands, another topic of profound national interest, the following document is sub- joined :-
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, April 17, 1834.
MR. CLAYTON, from the Committee on the Public Lands, made the following report :--
The Committee on the Public Lands, to which was referred the peti- tion of the Trustees of Transylvania College, of Kentucky, and that of the Trustees of Pendleton Academy, of the State of Alabama, praying for a donation of lands for the encouragement of their respective institutions, report :--
That the disposition of the public lands for such an object, however laudable, cannot be justified cither by the Constitution or the manner in which they are held by the Government. The only method by which Congress can "promote the progress of science and useful arts" is "by securing, for a limited time, to authors and inventors, the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoverics." It cannot be denied that the donation of the public lands to seminaries of learning would be to promote the progress of science, and consequently in a way very different from that prescribed in the above clause of the Constitution. By the express specification of the manner and cases in which science and the useful arts shall be encouraged, it is entirely obvious that every other mode is excluded. And this would be very apparent, if, instead of an application for a donation of lands from a college, it should come from an inventor of some useful instrument calculated to advance the useful arts. It will be seen, by the clause of the Constitution referred to, that science and the useful arts are placed upon the same footing; and, if it is allowed to depart from the prescribed method of promoting the progress of the former, the latter may with equal right claim a similar indulgence, and the committee believe no one is prepared to admit that the public lands could be given away to inventors, however useful their discoveries might be. It may be said that the Constitution had reference to the authors of writings. This idea is refuted not only by the generality of the ex- pression " the progress of science," which comprehends the subject in its most unlimited sense, but by the well-known history of this particular clause of the Constitution as found in the journal of the convention. The proposition to clothe Congress with the power to charter a university was thrice presented and rejected by the convention ; and, after referring
16-1
BENCHI AND BAR OF GEORGIA.
that subject, as well as the one relating to the encouragement of the useful arts, to a committee, all that could be obtained was the power as it now stands in the Constitution, and which the committee have before quoted; and this, in their opinion, is too plain to admit of a doubt that the Federal Government has any jurisdiction over the subject of science. Besides this view of the subject, the committee are of opinion the Govern- ment is further restrained from a disposition of the public lands in the manner required by the petitioners, from its solemn engagements made with the States from which it obtained its cessions of the public lands. In the conveyance made by the State of Virginia of her territory northwestward of the river Ohio, (and substantially in the eessions of lands made by North Carolina and Georgia, ) there is to be found the following stipula- tion :- " That all the lands within the territory so ceded to the United States, and not reserved for or appropriated to any of the before-men- tioned purposes, or disposed of in bounties to the officers and soldiers of the American army, shall be considered a common fund for the use and benefit of such of the United States as have become, or shall become, members of the confederation or federal alliance of the said States, Virginia inclusive, according to their usual respective proportions in the general charge and expenditure, and shall be faithfully and bona fide disposed of for that purpose, and for no other use or purpose whaterer." In this stipulation the object and intention are so plainly expressed that it is scarcely necessary to call the attention of Congress to them. If the public lands form " a common fund" for the use and benefit of the States accord- ing to their usual respective proportions in the general charge and expen- diture, and shall be disposed of for that and no other purpose, how can Congress make partial donations of a common fund for the benefit of seminaries of learning, intended, and so expressly stated, to be disposed of for the sole and exclusive purpose of benefiting the several States in the general charge and expenditure of the Government, and that, too, in unequal amounts to some States, and not to others? It appears to the committee that such a proposition cannot seriously be contended for. If the public lands were all sold and reduced to a common fund, in money, lying in the Treasury for the objects expressed in the above-quoted agree- ment, every one would see at once that Congress would not draw the money from that place for the purposes sought by the petitioners; and, if they would not in money, it is not perecived how it can be done while this common fund remains in lands. If a single acre can be used for that purpose, the whole can, and thus the fund would be diverted altogether from its palpably-expressed object. And this is not all : if any part of it can be given to one or two seminaries of learning, the whole can to the same, to the exclusion of all the other States. It is no good answer to this objection to say that Congress must take care to distribute the public lands equally among all the literary institutions throughout the United States : this would be most notoriously a departure from the contract of the ceding State; and, when once Congress shall substitute its discretion for the express terms of the agreement, it must be plain to every mind that there can be no limits to that discretion, save a sense of its own notions of propriety, most evidently forming no part of the inducements to the cessions of land made by the States to the Federal Government. It must be obvious, too, that, if they had the right to change the terms of the contract, it is wholly impracticable to make an equal and impartial
165
AUGUSTIN S. CLAYTON.
distribution of the lands among all the various institutions, high and low, intended to diffuse the benefits of education.
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.