OCTOBER 21, 1814.

The House resolved itself into a committee of the whole, on the foregoing report and letters, and made some progress therein. And, on the 22d, Mr. NELSON, from the said committee, reported that the committee had again had the said report and letters under consideration, and had made certain amendments to the first and second resolutions contained in the report, which they had directed him to report to the House, and ask leave to sit again upon the residue thereof.

OCTOBER 24, 1814.

The House proceeded to consider the above report of the committee of the whole House, and the question was stated, to concur with the said committee in their amendments to the said first and second resolutions:

When, on motion of Mr. EPPES,

Ordered, That the said first and second resolutions do lie on the table, and that the committee of the whole House have leave to sit again to-day, on the residue of said report and letters.

The House, afterwards, resolved itself into a committee, and Mr. PITKIN reported that the committee had again had the said report and letters under consideration, and made amendments to the fourth and fifth resolutions; also, that they had further amended the said report, by adding thereto three new resolutions, to come in as the 6th, 7th, and 8th.

On motion of Mr. EPPES,

Ordered, That the said report do lie on the table.

OCTOBER 28, 1814.

The House resumed the consideration of the remaining part of the report of the committee of the whole, it being the 8th resolution, "that it is expedient to establish a national bank, with branches, in the several States."

Mr. POST, of N. Y., hoped the chairman or some other member of the Committee of Ways and Means would explain the reasons on which the proposi tion was founded.

Mr. CLOPTON, of Va., called upon gentlemen in favor of the proposition to show in what part of the constitution was contained the power to establish a national bank. Having always, himself, denied the constitutional power, and the House having so decided, six years ago, he could not see what had occurred to change the nature of the constitutional question. Unless his objections on this head were removed, he must certainly vote against this proposition.

Mr. EPPES, of Va., said his sentiments in relation to this question were well known, and were not changed. However necessary he night believe the agency of such an institution at the present moment, he could not give his consent to a measure which he believed contrary to the constitution. For the reasons in favor of the resolve which he had reported, in obedience to the instructions of the committee, he referred to Mr. DALLAS's report, and to the gentlemen of the committee who favored it.

Mr. WRIGHT, of Md., expressed himself decidedly in favor of the establishment of a bank, but, in order to obviate objections some might conscientiously entertain on constitutional grounds, he was of opinion that the bank ought to be located within this district. He therefore moved to amend the resolve, by inserting therein the words "within the District of Columbia.”

Mr. BURWELL, of Virginia, said he had no doubt of the power of Congress to establish a bank of the kind proposed, in the District of Columbia; but he should vote against the amendment, because he believed such a bank would not at all assist the finances of the Government. He was, also, entirely hostile to the establishment of a bank on the principles recommended in the Secretary's report as its basis, for reasons growing out of their general impracticability and inexpediency.

Mr. DUVAL, of Kentucky, said he was opposed to the proposed amendment, because it would destroy the utility of the bank, so far as regards its issuing a medium which should possess the general confidence; and he was opposed to it, also, because the adoption of it would virtually sanction the construction, which he denied, that it was not constitutional to establish a bank with branches in the several States. Mr. D. was proceeding to argue in support of the constitutionality of a bank, when

Mr. WRIGHT withdrew the amendment which he had proposed.

Mr. STANFORD, of North Carolina, moved to strike out of the resolve the following words:" with branches in the several States." Some gentlemen, he said, were of opinion a bank might be established adequate to all necessary purposes, having no branches, but arrangements with some one or more banks now existing in each State. He was in favor of leaving the question as broad as possible.

Mr. DUVAL resumed his argument on the constitutional question, which he examined with no little ability and ingenuity. He chiefly rested his opinion of the power to incorporate a bank, on that section of the constitution which prohibits the States to coin money, or issue" bills of credit;" which negation of power, he apprehended, implied the existence of the power in Congress. If Congress had not power, under the constitution of the United States, to establish a bank or banks, nearly all the States had violated their own State constitutions, as well as the constitution of the United States, in authorizing the circulation of bank notes, which, call them what you will, are "bills of credit." Mr. D. went deeper stil! into this question, and concluded with expressing his decided hostility to the proposed amendment.

Mr. GROSVENOR, of New York, having no doubt of the constitutionality of a national bank, entreated gentlemen to vote down the proposed amendment; because, if adopted, it would hold out fallacious ideas of the adequacy of a bank without branches, to be established within this district, which would no more relieve the embarrassment of our finances than will the five and ten cents bills issued by the corporations of this city and Georgetown, &c. He should vote for the general proposition. As for the Secretary's proposition, it was a felo de se; and many of its features could not be sanctioned in this House.

Mr. HAWKINS, of Kentucky, said that one of his earliest convictions on political topics was, that this Government had no power to establish a national bank; but, if it is to be established, he was clearly of opinion it ought to be on general principles. In order to give the question full and ample consideration on the widest national, just, and general objects, he should vote against the amendment, without intending in any way to sanction the idea that Congress has the power" to establish a national bank with branches in the several States."

Mr. CLOPTON made a number of observations in reply to the argument of Mr. DUVAL. The true principle of construction of the constitution being that all powers not expressly delegated are reserved, he contended that Congress could by no forced construction derive the power to establish a national bank. Mr. WILSON, of Pennsylvania, predicated his views in favor of the resolution, and against the amendment, on the statement of facts, and reasoning of the Secretary of the Treasury on this subject, which, combined, he believed to be conclusive.

Mr. M'KEE, of Kentucky, expressed surprise that the opposition to this measure, declared by the Secretary of the Treasury to be necessary not only to the maintenance but to the restoration of the public credit, proceeded from those who had, in every other respect, been the most zealous and inflexible in their pursuit of measures to sustain the operations of the Government. He had no doubt of the power of the Government to establish a national bank as an instrument of finance, and entered into a train of reasoning, with his usual acumen, as well to prove this, as to prove the injury which had resulted from the

refusal to re-charter the late Bank of the United States. As to the establishing the bank within this district, for all present practical purposes, it might as well be established in Abyssinia. He was decidedly opposed to the motion now under consideration.

The question on Mr. STANFORD'S motion to strike out the words "with branches in the several States," was decided, by yeas and nays, in the negative, as follows: For the motion, 14. Against it, 138.

The question being stated on the passage of the resolution

Mr. PoST, of New York, said, under present impressions, he should vote against it, because the idea it embraced was illusive, and its object impracti cable at the present moment; to show which, he made a number of remarks going to establish the insufficiency of such a measure to remedy the general want of confidence among individuals as well as in the banks, which at present prevailed.

The question on the adoption of the resolution was decided by the following vote:

Those who voted in the affirmative, are, Messrs. Alexander,

Messrs. Montgomery,

Messrs. Forney,

So the resolution was agreed to, and this, together with the other resolutions, were referred to the Committee of Ways and Means, to bring in bills acccordingly. NOVEMBER 7, 1814.

Mr. FISK, of New York, from the Committee of Ways and Means, asked and obtained leave to report a bill to incorporate the subscribers to the Bank of the United States of America; which was twice read by its title, and referred to a committee of the whole.

And the House adjourned.

NOVEMBER 13, 1814.

The House went into committee of the whole on the said bill; which having been read through, the committee rose, and obtained leave to sit again. NOVEMBER 14, 1814.

The House resolved itself into a committee of the whole, Mr. NELSON, of Virginia, in the chair, on the bill to incorporate the subscribers to the Bank of the United States of America.

The first section of the bill having been read, in the following words:

"Be it enacted, &c. That a bank of the United States of America shall be established, the capital stock of which shall be fifty millions of dollars, and no more, divided into one hundred thousand shares, of five hundred dollars each share, and that subscriptions towards constituting the said capital stock, shall be opened on the first Monday of next, at the following places, viz: Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Richmond, Charleston, aud Pittsburg, under the superintendence of the following persons, as commissioners to receive the same: At Boston, James Lloyd, Thomas Perkins, and William Gray; at New York, General John Smith, Isaac Bronson, Theron Rudd; at Philadelphia, Thomas M. Willing, Stephen Girard, Chandler Price; at Baltimore, Henry Pason, William Cooke, William Wilson; at Richmond, Benjamin Hatcher, John Brokenborough, William Preston; at Charleston, John C. Faber, John Potter, James Carson; at Pittsburg, George Robinson, Samuel Robert, and Henry Baldwin; which subscriptions shall continue open every day, from the time of opening the same, from ten o'clock, in the forenoon, until four o'clock, in the afternoon, until the Saturday following, at four o'clock, in the afternoon, when the same shall be closed; and, immediately thereafter, the commissioners, or any two of them, at the respective places aforesaid, shall cause two transcripts or fair copies of such subscriptions to be made; one of which they shall send to the Secretary of the Treasury, one they shall retain, and the original subscriptions shall, within three days from the closing of the same, be, by the said commissioners, transmitted to the said commissioners at Philadelphia, or to one of them; and, on the receipt thereof, the said commissioners at Philadelphia, or any two of them, shall immediately thereafter convene, and proceed to take an account of the said subscriptions; and if more than the amount of the said capital stock of thirty millions of dollars shall have been subscribed, then the said last mentioned commissioners shall apportion the same, among the several subscribers, in a just and equal ratio, according to their several and respective subscriptions: Provided, however, That such commissioners shall, by such apportionment, allow and

apportion to each subscriber at least one share; and, in case the aggregate amount of the said subscriptions shall exceed thirty millions of dollars, the said commissioners, after having apportioned the same, as foresaid, shall cause lists of the apportioned subscriptions to be made out, including in each list the apportioned subscription for the place where the original subscription was made; one of which lists shall be transmitted to the commissioners, or to one of the commissioners, under whose superintendence such subscriptions were originally made, that the subscribers may ascertain from them the number of shares apportioned to such subscribers, respectively."

Mr. FISK, of New York, stated the reasons which had influenced the Committee of Ways and Means in confining to a few cities and towns the books of subscription, which were, generally, that the Atlantic cities were the principal repositories of specie and superfluous wealth, and that the exigencies of the times required greater expedition than was consistent with a more diffused subscription. It had been deemed proper, however, to add more commissioners in two or three of the cities; and he was instructed to move accordingly. And, on motion of Mr. FISK, the following gentlemen were added: To the commission at Boston, William Eustis and Samuel Brown; to the commission at New York, Isaac Lawrence and John Hone; to the commission at Philadelphia, Jared Ingersoll and Anthony Taylor.

Mr. SHARP, of Kentucky, then said he was not satisfied, by the reasons of the gentleman, for limiting to so few the places of subscription, and moved, for the convenience of the Western country, to insert Lexington, in Kentucky.

Mr. ROBERTSON, of Louisiana, proposed also New Orleans, and argued, with much force, in support of his suggestion; and other gentlemen proposed other places.

The motion of Mr. SHARP, being the one immediately before the House, gave rise to a considerable debate. The motion was supported by Messrs. Sharp, Robertson, Lewis, Macon, Wright, Pearson, Harris, Hopkins, of Kentucky, Burwell, and Barnett, and opposed by Messrs. Fisk, of New York, Oakley, Creighton, and Ingham.

On the one hand, various arguments were urged in favor of extending the subscription, founded on the equal rights of all sections of the country to participate in any general benefit; the expediency of collecting specie from every part of the country; the advantages of uniting in the subscription People of every quarter of the country; and thus uniting the People of all sections to the Union, by the ties of interest, which are frequently stronger than those of legal or moral force.

On the other hand it was said, besides the delay inseparable from such a course, that it was important that the bank should be put into operation speedily, if at all, and that its commencement would be greatly delayed by multiplying places of subscription. It was also said, that, if this motion were withdrawn, an amendment might be devised by the Committee of Ways and Means, which would meet the views of all parties.

Mr. SHARP's motion at length prevailed. Lexington, Kentucky, was inserted as one of the places at which subscriptions should be opened, and Messrs. Charles Wilkins, Lewis Sanders, and John H. Morton, designated as the commissioners.

On motion of Mr. ROBERTSON, New Orleans was then added, and commissioners named for that place.

On motion of Mr. HARRIS, Nashville was added, and Robert Weakley, Felix Grundy, and John R. Bedford, named as the commissioners.

On motion of Mr. LEWIS, Washington City was added, and Robert Brent, Walter Smith, and Thomas Swann, named as commissioners. Mr. FISK, of New York, named John Mason, Daniel Carroll, and John P. Van Ness; but Mr. LEWIS's motion being the first made, was agreed to.