Page:A History of Banking in the United States.djvu/317

 well stated by Silas Wright, in a report of the Senate Committee on Finance: "Try the proposition under consideration upon the banks themselves. Would they receive each other's notes at par when they were all specie-paying banks? Will a single sound bank among the whole number now consent to the passage of laws which shall compel them to receive each other's paper at par, or even to receive it at all, after they shall have resumed specie payments? Most certainly not. Then shall Congress by its legislation compel a credit for the notes of the banks at the Treasury, which they will not give, upon any terms, to the notes of each other? Most assuredly the banks will not have the effrontery to ask Congress to do this."

By an act of July 5th, the clause of the deposit act which forbade the receipt of notes of banks which issued small notes was suspended until October 1st. The Finance Committee of the Senate had made a report construing that law that if a deposit bank had suspended, or had failed to honor government drafts in specie, it must be discontinued as a depository, but might, upon resumption, be reinstated.

One thing in the public action of the Bank which had caused more general dissatisfaction than anything else was the continued circulation of the notes of the old Bank. As the New York "Journal of Commerce" argued, April 18, 1838, nobody was responsible for them. "Suppose somebody should get possession of the old notes of Stephen Girard's bank, which have been paid by his executors, and put them in circulation. No one will pretend that the executors of Mr. Girard would be bound to pay them. On the contrary, we reckon that whoever should be guilty of such an act would have his conduct characterized by some short words and be sent to prison to answer for his crime." February 12, 1838, the Senate Committee on the Judiciary made a report condemning the Bank for keeping these notes out, and submitted a bill making it a misdemeanor for the officers of any bank whose charter had expired to issue its notes, punishable by a fine not exceeding $10,000, or imprisonment at hard labor for not more than ten years, or both. A very hot debate arose over this bill, not upon the issue directly presented by it, but upon the whole political struggle about the Bank and the financial situation. The act was passed July 7th, that part of the penalty consisting in imprisonment being reduced to not less than one nor more than five years, and it was also provided that the federal Circuit Court might prohibit such act by injunction.

In May the notes of the old Bank were at four discount in Boston.

The Treasury of the United States being very destitute of funds, an act was passed July 7, 1838, authorizing the sale of the third bond of the Bank for the government stock, which would fall due in 1839. It was bought by the Bank. At the next session, in answer to a resolution of inquiry, the Secretary reported that the bonds of the Bank could not be sold either here or abroad on the terms set by law, except to the Bank;