ing the banks from making improper loans, than would the suggestion contained in the recent message of the governor, to the legislature of this state, to take their property into the state coffers. Mr Chairman, I have now come to a conclusion with my remarks on this very important question. I am aware that my argument has been an irregular one; but the rule by which we are now bound down to a given space of time, and that space, too, so very brief, imposed a difficulty as to the course I had chalked out, in addition to the difficulty which I natu. rally feel in discussing such intricate topics.. are I am disposed to go at once to the root of the evil, because I believe that banking institutions, unless properly regulated and restrained, injurious to the best interests of the country. I shall, therefore, vote in favor of all such propositions as I believe calculated to promote the public welfare, and to secure the public liberties. I shall, however, vote against the proposition now before the Chair. I close by reading a proposition, which I now give notice, I intend to offer for the adoption of the committee at a proper opportunity, and which I desire to see made part of the present provision of the constitution. It is as follows: "The legislature shall have power to repeal, or alter, any charter which has been, or may be, granted to any bank, whenever, in their opinion, the same is injurious to the citizens of the commonwealth; but no such alteration shall be binding on any bank, unless the same be assented to by a majority of the stockholders, certified in such manner as may be proscribed by law: And in case the bank, whose charter may be altered, shall neglect, or refuse, to assent to such alteration, within the time fixed by law, the chartered privileges granted to such bank, shall thenceforth cease and determine, except so far, and for so long a time, as may be necessary to collect its debis and wind up its concerns, not exceeding two years. Provided that when any bank charter shall be repealed or altered, or shall cease, as aforesaid, in case any bonus or sum of money, other than a tax on the stock, or annual profits of the bank, may have been paid to the state by such bank, for the privileges granted to it, the state shall retain, for the privileges enjoyed, only so much of such bonus or sum, as will be a just proportion of the bonus, or sum, such bank was to pay for the privileges granted-having a due regard to the amount of capital, and the duration of the charter, to be determined in such manner as may be provided by law. : "No bank, rail road company, navigation company, or canal company, shall be chartered, unless three-fifths of all the members of each branch of the legislature, concur therein. No bank shall be chartered with a capital of more than two hundred thousand dollars, unless two-thirds of all the members of each branch of the legislature, concur therein; nor any bank, with a capital of more than five hundred thousand dollars, unless three-fourths of all the members of each branch concur therein. Nor shall any bank be chartered with a capital greater than one million of dollais, nor for a longer period than ten years, unless the law charter ing the same, be passed by three-fourths of all the members of each branch of the legislature, at two successive sessions, and be approved by the governor. “And the bill which may be passed the first session, shall be published, with the laws enacted at such session. No bonus shall be required, or allowed to be paid by any bank, for the corporate privileges granted to it; and every law chartering or re-chartering a bank, which provides for the payment of any such bonus, shall be wholly void; but all sums of money required to be paid by any bank, for such privileges, shall be a yearly, or half yearly, tax on the stock or the profits of the company." With these remarks, said Mr. S., thrown together in this crude and hasty manner, I leave the subject. Mr. WOODWARD,* of Luzerne, moved to amend the amendment by adding to the end thereof the words following, viz: And the legislature may repeal, change, or modify the charters of all banks heretofore incorporated, or which may hereafter be incorporated in this commonwealth, whether the power to repeal, change, or modify, be reserved in such charters or not; but when the legislature shall repeal the charter of any bank, or reserve any of its corporate privileges, they shall provide adequate and sufficient compensation to the stockholders of such bank." Mr. WOODWARD moved that the committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again; which motion was decided in the negative. Mr. WOODWARD said, he had a few remarks to make on the subject of his propo position; and if the committee wished to hear them at this time, he would proceed. He had introduced this amendment with reluctance. In the present temper of the convention, he would not have brought it forward, but for certain resolutions, which were adopted by the convention in Harrisburg, before the adjournment to this city. He was fully aware of the difficulties against which he had to contend. He might be told that he was going against the expressed will of the majority of this body, in which, it was, at all times, his pleasure to acquiesce. These resolutions, however, seemed to make it necessary that there should be some amendment to the constitution, in reference to this subject. They would not have any influence on the legislature, excepta moral influence. But, whatever influence they were calculated to bring to bear in this commonwealth, it would be contrary to the genius and object of our institutions, and subversive of the liberties of the people. Wit this conviction impressed on his mind, deeply impressed as any honest conviction could be, he should consider himself recreant to his duty, if he did not attempt to obtain some amendment which would counteract the effect of these resolutions. [Mr. M'CAUEN-Mr. Woodward having yielded the floor-moved that the commntee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again, which was decided in the negative-ayes 43, noes 49.] Dec page 35. Mr. WOODWARD resumed. The resolution to which he particularly referred, was in the following words: "Resolved. That it is the sense of the convention, that a charter duly granted, under an act of assembly, to a bank or other private corporation, is, when accepted, a contract with the parties to whom the grant is male; and. if such charter be unduly granted, or subsequently misused, it may be avoided by the judgment of a court of justice in due course of law, and not otherwise, unless, in pursuance of a power expressly reserved in the charter itself." The phraseology of this resolution, seemed to him to be obscure and uncertain. Ile did not clearly understand it. A charter" duly" granted is, when accepted a contract, but if "such" charter be " unduly granted" or misused, it may be avoided by the courts, &c. There may be undue circumstances attending the grant of a charter, which will call most loudly for executive and legislative interposition, and for which the courts could afford no adequate remedy; and does the resolution mean to affirm that every charter to a bank, under whatever circumstances granted, is beyond legislative reach, and not to be repealed? It means this, if any thing. To such a proposition he could not be brought to assent. On the 25th of March, 1821, the legislature passed a law to re-charter certain banks, and they reserved the power to revoke, alter, or annul the charter of any of the banks, thereby chartered, whenever the public interest should require it. and all the acts incorporating banks, since that period, with one exception, have expressly reserved the same power, as extended and applied to the new bank the restrictions, limitations, and penalties of the general act of 1824, so that there is now only one bank in Pennsylvania, whose charter is not liable to be revoked, altered, or annulled by the legislature. The United States Bank of Pennsylvania, is the only exception. In its charter, there is no such reservation expressed, and nothing referring it to the general bank law. That bank, therefore, is the only one, to whose charter the doctrine of this resolution is applicable. [Mr. MARTIN-Mr. Woodward having yielded the floor for the purpose -moved that the committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again; which motion was decided in the negative-ayes 42, noes 57.] Mr. WOODWARD resumed: The object, then, of this resolution, I take to be, to assert that the United States Bank-because no other bank can be the subject of such an assertion-is entirely independent of all legislative action, so long as, in the judgment of a court of justice, it does not violate the terms and conditions of its charter. [Mr. W. here gave way to Mr. INGERSOLL, who moved that the committee now rise. And on the question, Will the committee of the whole agree to the motion? The yeas and nays were required by Mr. INGERSOLL, and nineteen others, and are as follow, viz : YBAS--Messrs. Avres, Banks, Barclay, Bedford, Bell, Bonham, Carey, Clarke, of Indiana, Coates, Craig, Crain, Cummin, Curll, Dillinger, Doran, Dunlop, Earle, Fleming. Foulkrod, Fry, Fuller, Gamble, Grenell, Helffenstein, Houpt, Ingersoll, Jenks, Keim, Krebs, Maclay, Magee, Martin, M’Cahen, M’Dowell, Nevin, Read, Ritter, Scheetz, Sellers, Seltzer, Shellito, Smith, of Columbia, Sterigere, Stickel, Sturdevant, Taggart, Weaver, Weidman, Woodward-49. NAYS--Messrs. Agnew, Baldwin, Barndollar, Barnitz, Biddle, Bigelow, Brown, of Northampton, Brown, of Philadelphia, Chambers, Chandler, of Philadelphia, Chauncey, Clarke, of Beaver, Clark, of Dauphin, Cleavinger, Cline, Cochran, Cope, Cox, Crawford, Crum, Cunningham, Darlington, Darrah, Denny, Dickey, Dickerson, Forward, Gearhart, Gilmore, Harris, Hayhurst, Hays, Henderson, of Dau phin, Hiester, Hopkinson, Kennedy, Kerr, Konigmacher, Mann, M'Call, M'Sherry, Meredith, Merkel, Miller, Montgomery, Overfield, Pennypacker, Pollock, Porter, of Lancaster, Porter, of Northampton, Purviance, Reigart, Royer, Russell, Saeger, Scott, Serrill, Sill, Smyth, of Centre, Snively, Stevens, Thomas, Todd, Young, Sergeant, President-65. So the committee refused to rise.] Mr. WOODWARD resumed: On the 18th of February, 1836, the law passed, re-chartering the Bank of the United States-he said re-chartering, because it was, in fact, re-chartering it, and there was no such provision contained in its charter in relation to leaving the power in the hands of the legislature, to modify, and repeal it, as was contained in the other bank charters in Pennsylva nia. Then he wished to say, that if this resolution which he had read, was to be understood by the public, as the mover of it, and that majority who adopted it, intended that it should be understood, it only embraces that one bank-the Bank of the United States-which has a capital of thirty-five millions, and which has the power of controling all the interests of Pennsylvania. The resolution places that bank entirely beyond the legislature of the commonwealth, which created it, and beyond the power of the people of the commonwealth, who have a right to re-model their form of government when they please. The people of Pennsylvania, have an acknowledged right, both by the constitution of the United States, and the constitution of their own state, to alter, modify, and reform their government; but according to this resolution, they have not a right to touch this institution, which is to remain sacred for thirty years. Sir, we have an institution, created on the soil of Pennsylvania, more powerful than the Queen of England in her own dominions; more powerful than the King of France, or the Emperor of Russia. Yes, sir, it is an institution which can exercise a greater influence, for good or for evil, over the people of this commonwealth, than either of these sovereigns can exercise over their subjects. It concentrates more power than the government of Pennsylvania, or that of the whole Union. It may make war or peace-preserve or destroy the constitutional currency-give value to every man's property and labor, and control our whole political system. Such an institution has been established in Pennsylvania, and it is now declared to be beyond the reach of the popular arm. Whatever may be its influence on a million and a half of people, their representatives are to have no power to control or modify, in any manner, its action. He apprehended that this was the most fatal blow, ever yet aimed at our liberties. It is calculated to lay those liberties low, and if the gentleman who moved this resolution, and his friends who supported it, will consent to submit the proposition to the people, they shall see with what indignant scorn it will be rejected. Why, sir, ought not such a proposition as this to be submitted to the people? Is a principle like that of the resolution, to be incorporated in our constitution, and to become law, without their having any voice in its adoption? The resolution, as such, cannot go to them, but his amendment could, and if they adopt the amendment, they reject the sentiment of the resolution. He wished to see this subject properly settled, and this had induced him to bring forward the amendment, which, if we adopt it, will be submitted to a vote of the freemen of the commonwealth, and will give thein an opportunity to decide, whether they have surrendered their rights to corporations, or whether they mean to retain the power of controling and restraining corporations, such as the Bank of the United States. He wished the appeal to be made to the ultimate tribunal, which, in this case, was the only proper tribunal. He wished the doctrine of that resolution, applicable as it is, solely to that bank, to be brought to the test of the ballot box, and he would cheerfully abide the issue. He now proposed examining whether this charter was, in fact, a contract or not, and, in doing so, he intended to leave out of view, for the present, all the decisions of courts on this subject. He intended to take a plain common sense view of the question, and to look at it, precisely as he believed the people of Pennsylvania would look at it; independently of those decisions, which it had been contended, settled the whole question. He was not unmindful of those decisions, but he should pass over them for the present, and if time was allowed him hereafter, he would notice them, before he took his seat, in a proper manner. This act, approved on the 18th day of February, 1836, he said, was not a contract, but it was a law, according to the common understanding of the terms, and he asserted that there was a wide difference between a law and a contract. It is a law in all its forms and features. It was passed by the law making power. It was an act passed in the ordinary form, in which laws were made. It is called a law. It has sections and parts, just as all laws have. The first section went to repeal a law, and that he took to be a law. It was passed by that department of the government whose especial duty it was to make laws, and not contracts. The people never conferred such a power upon the legislature, and they could not have it. Members of the legislature were not elected for that purpose. They are not elected for the purpose of selling the rights of the people, and pawning out their liberties to those who will give most money for them. This law was not a contract, because it had nothing of the form of a contract. The language of a contract is, “ I will, or I will That of a law is, "thou shalt, or thou shalt not." There was also a consideration necessary to every contract. But he denied that this law, which was called a contract, had any consideration at all. He was perfectly aware that one section of the law, authorizes the stockholders to pay into the treasury a sum of money, called a bonus; and he was aware that that was called a consideration. But he denied that the legislature could pass a law, in consideration of a certain sum of money paid. The legislature cannot sell law. It is a violation of their trust; it is a violation of the constitution, to make law a vendible article. If it be true that the legislature can bargain away a law, then the members of the legislature are but the market men of the people, and then it follows as a necessary consequence that the men who have the most money, will have the most law, and the best law. not." |