SENATE.] French Spoliations prior to 1800. riod, otherwise it would be a total loss to the United States of the whole ensurance, premium and all. He was willing to go into a statement of the accounts-to take the losses and take also the profits of a period during which the enterprise of the United States was extended beyond every former period. [DEC. 17, 1834. of the subject, had undertaken it, though he regretted that that gentleman was not a member of the committee. He would also be glad if the Senator from Tennessee, just before him, who was once on the committee, and who once gave his views on the subject, would undertake the task again. With his present impressions re He threw out these views to attract the attention ofgarding these claims, he should feel himself highly culSenators. He could not suffer himself to remain quiet in his seat without having said thus much-his principal design being to awaken the attention of the Senate. Mr. BENTON expressed his satisfaction that the Senator from Virginia [Mr. TYLER] had at once opened the discussion on this subject, thereby preventing a bill so important on account of the money concerned, and infinitely more important for the principles it involved, from being hurried through its first stages without a thorough examination. During the fourteen years he (Mr. B.) had been in the Senate, it had been his province to watch the progress of this bill-his eye had been constantly fixed on it; and while he never had sufficient time to devote to a proper examination of so important a subject, he had always wished that some gentleman who was capable of doing it justice would make himself master of it, and place it in a strong light before Congress and the American people. He himself, as he had said above, had not had time to look sufficiently into the subject, and he therefore wished those gentlemen who were in the same situation to see the vast amount of documents necessary to be examined before it could be understood. We have had, said he, for years, volumes of 600 pages each presented to us relative to these claims, and, if he was rightly informed, a mere epitome or abstract of them. No; he was wrong, for the term epitome or abstract implied a just though abbreviated view of the whole subject; and he had been informed that these volumes contained mere one-sided testimony, for the purpose of favoring the claims. He might be in error as to this, but, if so, it would be shown by a due examination of the whole subject. Then, as to the reports which had been before the House for years. He wished gentlemen to bear with him while he made a few observations respecting them: his sole object being to do justice to his country. He therefore said as he believed, that these reports were framed in such a way as not to give a complete view of the subject embraced in them. They had been made by select committees, comprised of five members, always selected with a majority in favor of the claims. He did not say that this was unfair; but he did say that there ought at least to have been on these committees minorities able to examine the important principles involved, and to report, not a volume of 600 or 1,000 pages, but to report sufficiently to enable the Senate to understand both sides of the question. How was this select committee formed the other day? Why, one of the members was a gentleman from South Carolina, [Mr. PRESTON,] not then here, and another was a gentleman [Mr. GRUNDY] so swamped, as he expressed himself, by his arduous duties in the Post Office Committee, as to be wholly unable to give the necessary degree of attention to a committee requiring so much labor and research as this did. Are we, then, (said Mr. B.,) to be expected to give faith to a report from a committee so framed that the majority is known to be favorable to the object for which it was appointed, and the minority known to be so constituted as not to be able to give the proper attention to its duties? He had looked into this mass of documents, and if the bill was not to be galloped through with, he would look farther into the 1,000 pages, in order to understand them better than he then did. In the mean time, he was glad that the Senator from Virginia, who possessed some knowledge pable if he did not raise his voice against them. The Senator from Virginia [Mr. TYLER] had just said that these claims ran back as far as 1796. But look (said Mr. B.) at the first section of the bill, and you may seek in vain in the annals of legislation for any thing so illimitable as to time. The complaints were not against the Republic of France, or against the monarchical Government of France, but against all the Governments of that country; while the time was carried back as far as our national existence would go, in order to open the door to these claims. And what was the description of them? They were for detentions, condemnations, forcible seizures, illegal captures, and confiscations, &c., made or committed prior to 1800. Was there any thing in language that could be more loose; or was there any disaster to which vessels were liable, in a time of war, that could not be brought within this general description? The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. WEBSTER] had compared the claims to be provided for by this bill with those covered by the late French treaty; but Mr. B. apprehended they were as opposite as any two extremes could possibly be. The first class of claims embraced in the treaty was for American vessels invited into St. Sebastian by the French General, and there captured and condemned. The second class was for vessels captured under the Berlin and Milan decrees, before the American owners and captains could possibly know of the existence of those decrees. The third class of claimants was for non-payment of supplies to the West India islands and to continental France; and the fourth class was for American vessels burnt on the high seas by French cruisers, for fear the American vessels would let the British fleet know where the French cruisers were. These were the classes of claims covered by the treaty, and were altogether unlike those intended to be provided for by the bill. Mr. B. concluded by saying that he did not desire at that time to enter into a full discussion; but if this bill was not to be galloped through with, he wished to have an opportunity to make an examination into the subject, for the purpose of informing the American people of the nature of these claims. Mr. PRESTON said he should be very greatly gratified if the Senator from Missouri would give them the benefit of a further investigation into the matter; and there was no one who more profoundly felt the necessity of that course being taken than himself, (Mr. P.) He came from a section of the country which was generally much opposed to the passage of bills of this description, and which might have been supposed to have marked out the line of policy which he was to pursue, namely, that he should oppose the improper appropriation of money for this or any other matter. He could never advocate the improper taking of funds out of the treasury, more especially after the course which he had felt himself bound to take at the last session, when he had been of opinion that, in this particular, a flagrant attack had been made on the constitutional rights of this body. He now felt himself authorized to take up a position contrary to that of the gentleman from Virginia, with whom he had the honor to be associated at that period, and came to the conclu. sion, from an examination of the documents and the report made on the subject, that the claims ought to be entertained. That gentleman, with whom he had been associated personally and politically, had made up his mind adverse to them. He (Mr. P.) had gone into an investigation of the documents to which the honorable Senator had alluded, as well as all the correspondence, and yet, with the little attention which he was enabled to bestow upon the subject, he was convinced as to what formed the basis of the treaty of 1800. As a lawyer, he should, after all the examination which he had given the subject, and in which he had not spared any labor, have felt himself authorized not to abandon these claims upon the testimony he had seen. It had been said that the testimony was ex parte. Of that, he could say nothing. But the testimony was voluminous, and it was necessary to a thorough investigation to examine reports, consisting of six or eight hundred pages. As a new member, he thought it his duty to devote himself assiduously to this labor, for he was anxious to get at the bottom of the matter. He took a course in regard to these claims which was calculated to lead him to a just conclusion. Taking up the report against the claims, with a prepossession in favor of the views entertained in it, he went through it; and he also examined the report of Mr. Livingston, in favor of the claims, with an anxious desire to find some point on which he could rest an opposition to them; but he could find no such point. From a wish to ascertain what was likely to be the extent of the labor involved in an investigation of the evidence, &c., he had made certain inquiries, and the answers were of such a nature as to make him shrink from the task. With all the spirit that actuated the Senate on this subject, he would tell them they could not go through the mass of papers relating to it this session, if they did nothing else. As far as he had had an opportunity of judging, from the testimony he had seen, the opinion which he had come to was, that the claims were irresistible. [SENATE. delicate policy involved in these claims. The view which he took of this subject was shortly this: In the quasi war, which took place between 1793 and 1800, spoliations were committed on our commerce by various Governments in Europe which were at war with France. Negotiations were set on foot between France and the United States on the subject of the quasi war, and they were settled by the convention of 1800. Now, that convention was conclusive in barring thereafter all claims arising out of previous spoliations on the French Government. It had never entered into the heads of the claimants to go to the French Government since. By the treaty, the United States exempted itself from the guarantee of the West India islands. We were willing to give any thing to get rid of that guarantee, and proposed, by instructions from the Executive, no less than three several times, to give any actual sum to get rid of the original treaty. We proposed to give money to get out of the difficulty-the predicament in which we had placed ourselves while struggling for our liber. ties. Having first called upon France to assist us, we afterwards thought proper to adopt another course towards her when she was struggling for her liberties; and we offered to give three times the sum appropriated by this bill, to buy ourselves by money out of the compact which we had entered into with France in regard to the islands of Guadaloupe and Martinique. It was worth more to them; they held us up for other purposes. The French Government came to the conclusion that we should buy off the guarantee by assuming these claims. He was not sufficiently au fait to lay his hands on the books; but he referred to the extracts of the reports of the commissioners, and the terms on which the negotiation was made, in order to show that that was the ground which was taken. We made arrangements, and we got rid of the complaints which were made about spolia tions. We had used the property of the parties injured for the purposes of the Government; and we had bought ourselves free from the guarantee of Guadaloupe and Martinique. [Here Mr. PRESTON was wholly inaudible.] We had used the property of this people for the purposes of the Government; and yet it was contended that we should not make compensation. If, however, we had used their means to extricate ourselves from our difficulties, we were bound to pay them to the last cent. He should have been glad to have found that his original views were right; but, as long as he entertained a different opinion, and that most conscientiously, he would merely say that, instead of the five millions which were claimed, had the sum been five hundred millions, although it should drain the treasury, if it were justly due, he should say "pay it." Although a large sum, as his constituents would think, yet he would not shrink from voting for the payment of it. He knew how easy it was for gentlemen's minds to shrink back at the idea of paying large sums to claimants who were scattered all over the country. This was a large sum, and it was an easy matter to shrink from the examination of the sub- In another point of view he had examined this quesject, and to say there are sufficient grounds of opposition with some attention, and he now threw out the tion, and that the treasury must not be exhausted. He views he entertained, in order that gentlemen might cared not what it might cost, if the honor or honesty of examine into the matter. He had used the expresthe country was involved: he went for that, cost what- sion "quasi war," between 1793 and 1800, while the ever of blood or treasure it might-whether the spolia- chaldron of the French revolution was boiling over, and tions were anterior or subsequent to 1800; it was of no scattering its fierce effervescence over the whole of Euconsequence. His honorable friend from Virginia, [Mr. rope. It was affirmed by some gentlemen that this pe TYLER,] who opposed these claims, had suggested a riod was to be considered a state of actual war, which matter which he could not agree to: that the claimants rendered it impossible for the French Government to here were the ensurers of property which was ventured enter into any treaties on the subject of these spoliations. abroad during the quasi war. Mr. P. then went into a view of the course which had been taken by our Government in reference to the condition of France, and the validity of the treaties made during that period, and concluded with saying that he should be extremely gratified to be convinced that we were not bound by our consciences to pay these claims. If they were unjust, then, no matter how much the claimants might be injured, he would vote against the bill, and should rejoice to think that we had not expended money upon those to whom it was not due. But, if he had now taken wrong views of the matter, he demanded, at least, the credit of having spoken with sincerity, and from a desire to see justice done to these claimants. [Mr. TYLER said "not all."] Mr. PRESTON continued: Well, a large portion of them: he was going to say not all. A great proportion of them were losers by that war. There were some of his own constituents who came here as claimants, and who did not come under the character of ensurers, and many of them would not, if this bill were to pass, obtain five cents in the dollar of what they had lost. He knew those who had presented petitions from his State were some of them widows, and children, and grandchildren. Why were they presented? Because they were considered just and equitable demands. Without pretending to go into the matter at this time, he would state that there were questions of deep and Mr. BENTON said the honorable Senator from South Carolina had spoken of the magnitude of the sum involved, as presenting an obstacle to the passage of these claims. He (Mr. B.) apprehended that a more full acquaintance with our legislation would enable that gentleman to perceive that the magnitude of the sum which was to be appropriated was not the obstacle, but that precisely in proportion to the mass--the momentum-the million--the amount, we got along. And certain it was, that we ourselves--each member was cognizant of the momentum which operated in the magnitude of the claim to carry it along. Was there any gentleman who attended either House of Congress assiduously, but what knew that it was easy enough to obtain memorials in every section of the Union? And did not some of those come from widows, from whom, perhaps, the speculator had taken it? Or, if not, perhaps he would allow her but a scanty pittance, whilst he himself was loaded with the thousands? When the gentleman had sat there as long as he had, he would cease to talk of amounts--of millions. But the honorable Senator had read--what? | Those ex parte documents which he (Mr. B.) had perused, and had also read the report which he (Mr. B.) had named. With regard to Mr. Livingston's participation in the treaty with France, he (Mr. B.) would say that he entertained for him the highest respect and regard, and thought highly of his intellectual capacity; but he was in every affair of money a mere "child,” whether it was in his own private concerns, or that of his country. The honorable Senator seemed to think that an examination into this matter could not be fully completed in three months. He (Mr. B.) thought otherwise, and, in conclusion, remarked that he should "make battle for his country" by day or by night, and whether this bill was now to be galloped through, or proceeded in slowly, he would be found contending for his native land. But, for the present, he should say no more. Mr. SHEPLEY observed that, as he had been alluded to as being one of the committee, and as he had never been on the committee before, it might possibly be supposed that he had made up an opinion favorable to these claims without a due examination. While he hoped that every fair opportunity would be given to gentlemen who were not acquainted with the subject to make all necessary examinations, he must say that, before he was on the committee, he had found it necessary to investigate the documents, not as a committee man, but as a Senator, knowing these claims were before Congress, and that there were reports in relation to them on which he would probably have to act. He did not, therefore, come there without having prepared himself to act when the business came before the Senate. He did not come there "to make fight" without having ready the weapons to make fight with; and he trusted that, when an opportunity served, he would be able to show that he had patiently and diligently examined into the nature of the whole of these claims, and also be able to prove to all minds, not already made up against them, that the claims were good claims; that they were against France; that there was a reasonable expectation that they could be recovered from France, and that there was good reason for saying that they were worth as much as the claims that have been recovered from France, Spain, and Denmark. He trusted also to be able to show that, when this Government recognised those claims, and when it urged them against France, it found itself in a condition to make them good, and to recover the amount. Being therefore in a condition to recover them, which no Senator would deny, why was it not done? It was because France set up a claim against us under the eleventh article of the treaty, by which we guarantied the safety of the West India islands, together with a claim against us of her own citi [DEC. 18, 1834. zens, which she might have recovered. Because also France proposed that there should be a convention to decide upon and settle the claims of the citizens of both countries, and was ready to abide by the decision of the convention, paying to our citizens what might be found to be due to them, and exacting from the United States the amount found to be due to her citizens. The United States, however, declined to enter into this convention, and not only declined it, but offered to compensate France in money, to the amount of five millions of francs, for the non-performance of the stipulations in the eleventh article of the treaty, which offer France declined, demanding ten millions of francs. The United States further offered to France three millions of francs as a compensation for other claims; and, finally, both Governments agreed, by the treaty of 1800, as was well known, to postpone further negotiations on these subjects. Again, the very grounds of the ratification of this treaty on the part of France was, that her claims against us should be considered as a set-off for the claims of our citizens against her. That is, that each Government should discharge the claims of its own citizens against the other; and it was so understood at the time of the ratification of the treaty. There was then a most express set-off of the claims of American citizens on France against our treaty stipulations with that Power; and if gentlemen would take the trouble to examine the documents, they would find that there never was a more complete set-off of one claim against another than was to be shown by them. But it was said by the Senator from Missouri that these reports came from a most partial source. He could, if it were not for taking up too much of the time of the Senate, show, from the official documents of this Government, that the reports were perfectly fair. Two opposing propositions could not, it must be admitted, be maintained from official documents; and if this Government did not, in its official documents, present so singu lar an anomaly as two opposing propositions, he could not be in an error. He must be permitted, therefore, to rely on the documents in the report for the conclusions he had arrived at, until, from some other documents, the opposite could be proved. He had not expected at that time to show from these documents, reading them page by page, the truth of every proposition he had laid down; but he could and would, on a proper occasion, demonstrate the fairness and justice of all these claims. For the present, he would propose that the further consideration of the subject be postponed. Mr. WEBSTER then moved an adjournment, which was carried. THURSDAY, DECEMBER 18. BANK OF THE UNITED STATES. Mr. TYLER, from the Committee on Finance, which was directed by the resolution of the Senate to inquire into the condition and affairs of the Bank of the United States, made a voluminous report thereon; which having been read, Mr. T, moved to print the ordinary number of copies. Mr. BENTON rose, not to object to the printing, nor to go into an argument in answer to the report, which would come more properly at another time, but to correct some errors which claimed his attention. His own name was made to figure in that report, in very good company to be sure, that of President Jackson, Vice President Van Buren, and Senator Grundy. It seems that we have all, said Mr. B., been detected in something that deserves exposure, in the offence of aiding our respective constituents, or fellow-citizens, in obtaining branch banks to be located in our respective States; [SENATE. and upon this detection the assertion is made that these and condescension of the high directory in Philadelphia, branches were not extended to these States for political myriads of bank documents were sent, with a minute effect, when the charter was nearly run out, but in good description of name and place, postage free. At the faith, and upon our application, to aid the business of presidential election of 1832, the State was deluged the country. Mr. B. said it was true that he had for- with these favors. At his own re-elections to the Senate, warded a petition from the merchants of St. Louis, about the last two, the branch bank was in the field against 1826 or '27, soliciting a branch at that place; and he him every where, and in every form; its directors travershad accompanied it by a letter, as he had been requesteding the State, going to the houses of the members of to do, sustaining and supporting their request; and bearing the testimony to their characters as men of business and property, which the occasion and the truth required. He did this for merchants who were his political enemies, and he did it readily and cordially, as a representative ought to act for his constituents, whether they are for him or against him in the elections. So far so good; but the allegation of the report is, that the branch at St. Louis was established upon this petition, and this letter, and therefore was not established with political views, but purely and simply for business purposes. Now, said Mr. B., I have a question to put to the Senator from Virginia, [Mr. TYLER,] who has made the report for the committee: It is this, whether the president or directors of the bank had informed him that General Cadwallader had been sent as an agent to St. Louis, to examine the place, and to report upon its ability to sustain a branch? Mr. TYLER rose and said that he had heard nothing at the bank upon the subject of General Cadwallader having been sent to St. Louis, or any report upon the place being made. Then, said Mr. BENTON, resuming his speech, the committee has been treated unworthily, scurvily, basely, by the bank! It has been made the instrument to report an untruth to the Senate, and to the American people; and neither the Senate, nor that part of the American people who chance to be in this chamber, should be permitted to leave their places until that falsehood was exposed. Sir, said Mr. B., addressing the Vice President, the president and directors of the Bank of the United States, upon receiving the merchants' petition, and my letter, did not send a branch to St. Louis! They sent an agent there, in the person of General Cadwallader, to examine the place, and to report upon its mercantile capabilities and wants; and upon that report the decision was made, and made against the request of the merchants, and that upon the ground that the business of the place would not justify the establishment of a branch. The petition from the merchants came to Mr. B. while he was here, in his seat; it was forwarded from this place to Philadelphia; the agent made his visit to St. Louis before he (Mr. B.) returned; and when he got home, in the spring or summer, the merchants informed him of what had occurred, and that they had received a letter from the directory of the bank, informing them that a branch could not be granted; and there the whole affair, so far as the petition and the letter were concerned, died away. But, said Mr. B., it happened just in that time that I made my first demonstration-struck my first blow-against the bank; and the next news that I had from the merchants was, that another letter had been received from the bank, without any new petition having been sent, and without any new report upon the business of the place, informing them that the branch was to come! And come it did, and immediately went to work to gain men and presses, to govern the politics of the State, to exclude him (Mr. B.) from re-election to the Senate, and to oppose every candidate, from Governor to constable, who was not for the bank. The branch had even furnished a list to the mother bank, through some of its officers, of the names and residences of the active citizens in every part of the State; and to these, and to their great astonishment at the familiarity the General Assembly after they were elected, in almost Mr. B. said that if he had had a line from the committee, (and he was within their reach all the summer,) he could have turned them to the inquiry which would have brought out the truth, with respect to the establishment of the St. Louis branch, and saved them from the imposition which the bank directory had practised upon them. As it was, he still wanted their help in a case which was now theirs, as well as his; it was to aid him in exposing the unworthy, the scurvy, and the base trick of the bank. He should submit a resolution requiring the committee to obtain from the president of the bank a copy of General Cadwallader's report; a copy of the answer to the merchants, and a copy of the second letter, announcing the change of determination, and the immediate establishment of the branch. Until those copies came in, he should say no more on that point, but must be content to see his name figure in the myriad of copies of the report (the more the better) which would be printed, and which would give the village orators of the bank an opportunity of astonishing the natives who came in from the heads of the creeks and the gorges of the mountains, with showing them what an inconsistent and unprincipled fellow this Mr. Benton is; and to admire the delicacy of the bank, which never publishes a private letter, nor exposes the names of public men. Mr. B. said there was another thing which must be noticed now, because the proof to, confound it was written in our own journals. [DEC. 18, 1834. committee have joined a conspicuous issue with Mr. Taney; and they have carried a glorious bank victory over him, by turning off the trial upon a false point. Mr. Taney arraigned the legality of the conduct of the exchange committee, which, overleaping the business of such a committee, which is to buy and sell real bills of exchange, had become invested with the power of the whole board; transacting that business which, by the charter, could only be done by the board of directors, and by a board of not less than seven, and which they could not delegate. Yet this committee of three, selected by the president himself, was shown by the report of He alluded to the the Government directors to transact the most important "hostility" of the President of the United States to the business; such as making immense loans, upon long bank, which made so large a figure in that report. The credits, and upon questionable security; sometimes coV"vindictiveness" of the President-the "hostility" of ering its operations under the simulated garb, and falsithe President, was often pressed into the service of fied pretext, of buying a bill of exchange; sometimes that report, which he must be permitted to qualify as an using no disguise at all. It was shown, by the same elaborate defence of the bank. Whether used originally, report, to have the exclusive charge of conducting the or by quotation, it was the same thing. The quotation curtailment last winter; a business of the most important from Mr. Duane was made to help out the argument of character to the country, having no manner of affinity to the committee-to sustain their position, and thereby the proper functions of an exchange committee; and became their own. The "vindictiveness" of the Preswhich they conducted in the most partial and iniquitous ident towards the bank is brought forward with imposing manner, and without even reporting to the board. All gravity by the committee; and no one is at a loss to unthis the Government directors communicated. All this derstand what is meant! The charge has been made too was commented upon on this floor; yet Mr. Taney is often not to suggest the whole story as often as it is hint-selected! He is the one pitched upon; as if nobody but ed. The President became hostile to the president of him had arraigned the illegal acts of this committee; and the bank because he could not manage him, and make then he is made to arraign the existence of the commithim use the institution for political purposes! and hence tee, and not its misconduct! Is this right? Is it fair? his revenge, his vindictiveness, his hatred of Mr. Biddle, Is it just thus to pursue that gentleman, and to pursue and his change of sentiment towards the institution. This him unjustly? Can the vengeance of the bank never be is the charge which has run through the bank presses appeased while he lives and moves on earth? for three years, and is alleged to take date from 1829, when an application was made to change the president of the Portsmouth branch. But how stands the truth, recorded upon our own journals? It stands thus: that for three consecutive years after the harboring of this deadly malice against Mr. Biddle, for not managing the institution to suit the President's political wishes-for three years, one after another, with this "vindictive" hate in his bosom, and this diabolical determination to ruin the institution, he nominates this same Mr. Biddle to the Senate as one of the Government directors, and at the head of those directors! Mr. Biddle, and some of his friends with him, came in upon every nomination for three successive years, after vengeance had been sworn against him! For three years afterwards he is not only named a director, but indicated for the presidency of the bank, by being put at the head of those who came recommended by the nomination of the President, and the sanction of the Senate! Thus was he nominated for the years 1830, 1831, and 1832; and it was only after the report of Mr. Clayton's committee of 1832 that the President ceased to nominate Mr. Biddle for Government director! Such was the frank, confiding, and friendly conduct of the President; while Mr. Biddle, conscious that he did not deserve a nomination at his hands, had himself also elected during each of these years, at the head of the stockholders' ticket. He knew what he was meditating and hatching against the President, though the President did not! What, then, becomes of the charge faintly shadowed forth by the committee, and publicly and directly made by the bank and its friends? False! False as hell! and no Senator can say it without finding the proof of the falsehood recorded in our own journal! Mr. B. was not now going into a general answer to the report, but he must do justice to an absent gentleman-one of the purest men upon earth, both in public and private life, and who, after the manner he had been❘ treated in this chamber, ought to be secure, in his retirement, from Senatorial attack and injustice. The Mr. B. had performed a duty which ought not to be delayed an hour, in defending himself, the President, and Mr. Taney, from the sad injustice of that report; the report itself, with all its elaborate pleadings for the bankits errors of omission and commission--would come up for argument, after it was printed; and when, with God's blessing, and the help of better hands, he would hope to show that it was the duty of the Senate to recommit it, with instructions to examine witnesses upon oath, and to bring out that secret history of the institution, which seems to have been a sealed book to the committee. For the present, he would bring to light two facts, detected in the intricate mazes of the monthly statements, which would fix at once both the character of the bank and the character of the report; the bank, for its audacity, wickedness, and falsehood; the report, for its blindness, fatuity, and partiality. The bank, as all America knows, (said Mr. B.,) filled the whole country with the endless cry which had been echoed and re-echoed from this chamber, that the removal of the deposites had laid her under the necessity of curtailing her debts; had compelled her to call in her loans, to fill the vacuum in her coffers produced by this removal; and thus to enable herself to stand the pressure which the "hostility" of the Government was bringing upon her. This was the assertion for six long months; and now let facts confront this assertion, and reveal the truth to an outraged and insulted community. The first fact (said Mr. B.) is the transfer of the moneys to London, to lie there idle, while squeezed out of the people here during the panic and pressure. The cry of distress was raised in December, at the meeting of Congress; and during that month the sum of $129,764 was transferred by the bank to its agents, the Barings. This cry waxed stronger till July, and until that time the monthly transfers were: December, $129,764 June, February, 355,253 July, March, May, 261,543 34,749 2,142,054 501,950 $3,425,313 |