specie payments on January 15, 1841; they did so, but again failed on February 4. The mammoth' then went into liquidation; the other banks did not recur to gold and silver for over a year. Though the conduct of Mr. Biddle has been so severely criticised, and so many injurious aspersions cast upon his character, he morally was not so guilty as the disastrous results of his policy and commercial operations would indicate. Being in effect the sole manager of the institution for a long series of years, he appears to have lost sight of the fact that he was only the agent for others, and responsible to them for the use of the funds entrusted to his care. The flatterers and sycophants who encouraged this delusion of a too prosperous man were his most bitter enemies and vilifiers when he fell. At one time, it was almost treason' and 'disloyalty' to even hint at or question the illegality or immorality of the transactions of the bank; the Democrats of those days were nearly as much persecuted because they were anti-bank men as their successors at the present period are for their political faith. Nor would the masses believe that it was the bank that assisted in bringing about the commercial distress that existed from 1837 to 1840, but they charged it upon President Jackson's opposition to the recharter of the national' institution. Surely the new bank was national enough, for it extended its sphere of usefulness (?) all over the Union, and assisted the Whigs or Bank party in the election of Harrison and Tyler in 1840. Fortunately for the country, President Harrison died after being in office only one month; this made John Tyler President, whose chief acts were to veto two Bank bills that had been passed by Congress at a special session called for that purpose by his predecessor. Mr. Tyler, although a Whig, was an anti-bank man, and his name was, therefore, placed on the ticket with that of Harrison, to give it strength, and prevent too much opposition from those who held that the Federal Government had no more right to grant a charter for a bank than to engage in any other species of finance or commerce-no such power having been delegated to it by the States.

Since Mr. Biddle's day, the presidents of the Philadelphia banks, except in a few cases, have not been remarkable for their ability, but rather for their want of it. They have had the

weakness to furnish funds to the Lincoln administration for the purpose of carrying on the crusade against the South-moneys which had been entrusted to them by their stockholders to be employed for legitimate business purposes. This, in its practical effects, is much worse than Mr. Biddle's operations; for they, by their unauthorised and improper course, have brought irretrievable ruin and disgrace upon the country; while the evils inflicted by the former, though widespread and carrying misery to many a hearth, were felt only by individuals. The presidents of the Philadelphia banks had it in their power to stay the hands of those of New York and Boston.

Nor is this all: the monied institutions of the three cities have been deceiving the people. It is said that they have a standing arrangement with the Federal Secretary of the Treasury to keep down the volume of greenback currency, by taking the 5-20 loan at 80 cents on the dollar, they receiving the benefit of any sales that may be made to the public through the United States subscription agency. In other words, all Mr. Chase's financial arrangements are now made through these banks, who thus receive what is equivalent to a commission of 20 per cent. on each transaction; and for this they allow him the use of the specie in their vaults to 'bear' the gold market. The result will be, that the Government and the banks will break up, or rather break down, together, and the ruined stockholders and outraged communities will take their vengeance upon the guilty parties.

The politicians of the old Federal party, and their successors, the Whigs and Republicans, have ever had a desire for a national bank; in this they have always been opposed by a large majority of the Democrats, on the ground of the inutility and unconstitutionality of the measure. Its advocates base their arguments upon the success of the Bank of England as the fiscal agent of the British Government, without making allowance for the difference in political institutions or in geographical extent of the two countries. The respectable old lady' in Threadneedle Street might as well extend her sphere of operations to Canada and Australia, as for a bank in the American States to control the currency and regulate exchanges throughout their entire space. The two banks

chartered by Congress-the first in 1791, the second in 1816never accomplished what was expected of them: the latter concern became, with the decay in public morals, a most corrupt corporation; the Pennsylvanian charter was a mere continuation of the Federal grant. The circulation of the banks of the individual States was always much larger than that of the Bank of the United States. It took some time for the business of the country to become settled after the two wars with Great Britain; and the operations of each bank created by Congress beginning at a favourable period, the cause of the restoration of mercantile credit was ascribed to those institutions on both occasions.

The Federals have fallen into another error in attributing the success of the revolutionary struggle to financial facilities afforded by the Bank of North America at Philadelphia, which institution was chartered by the Congress of the Confederation. in 1781; the proposition for its organisation having originated in a resolution of May 26, 1781, founded on a suggestion of the Superintendent of Finance, which was carried into execution by an ordinance of December 31, 1781, entitled, An Ordinance to 'Incorporate the Subscribers to the Bank of North America ;' and it commenced business on January 7, 1782, eighty days after the surrender of Yorktown, which was the decisive event of the struggle. It is, therefore, folly to say that the bank contributed in any degree to the success of the cause in which the Americans were then engaged. The truth is, that the bank received great pecuniary aid from the Government by means of the credit conferred by its charter; and how history has been so warped it is difficult to comprehend. The bank was a sort of close corporation, used to serve the selfish ends of some speculators who managed its affairs. It continued in existence only a few years, when it was succeeded by another bank of the same title, chartered by the State of Pennsylvania, but endowed with dissimilar powers, the directors of which institution have had the hardihood at this late day to make the subjoined misstate

ment:

'Bank of North America, Philadelphia: July 28, 1862.

At a meeting of the directors this day, the following preamble and resolution were adopted unanimously:

"Whereas this bank was instituted in 1781 to aid the colonies in the struggle for their independence; and whereas it has ever 'since prospered under the Government it assisted in creating; and whereas (in carrying out the policy of making contribu❝tions to such objects only as are in its legitimate sphere) the stability of the Government is most essential to the interests 6 of the stockholders: It is therefore

Resolved, that the sum of ($5,000) five thousand dollars be 'contributed by the bank, and disposed of in such manner as 'the president may deem most expedient, to assist the Govern'ment in maintaining its integrity.

Extract from the Minutes.

'J. Hockley, Secretary.'

6 THOMAS SMITH, President.

The bank, chartered by Congress, never contributed' a penny to the Federal Government for any purpose whatever. It did not assist in 'creating' either the Federal or State Governments, and its successor has not ever since prospered;' it has failed several times, and does not at present pay its debts. Nor did it meet its liabilities at the time of the passage of the above resolution. Surely appropriating its stockholders' money, or that of its creditors, towards prosecuting the atrocious war against the South, cannot be carrying out the policy of making contributions to such objects only as are in its legitimate sphere.'

From the beginning of 1780 until the close of the war, specie was very plentiful in the States. The large expenditures of the English and French forces found their way into the interior. The foreign loans, too, were paid in hard money; and the Havannah trade, clandestinely conducted during hostilities, occasioned a large influx of silver dollars. In fact, the operations of the war caused such a drain of the precious metals from Europe, that the Bank of England was brought into jeopardy, and the Caisse d'Escompte at Paris actually suspended in 1783.

A remarkable hallucination in reference to a national debt has likewise been prevalent in the Northern States. Many persons have believed that such was desirable, in order to

cement the Union,' again holding out the example of England in order to strengthen their arguments, without making any discrimination as to causes or consequences. The enormous

wealth thrown into the lap of England by the African and Indian trades enabled the Government to carry on successfully the wars in which it was engaged; the money having been spent mostly at home, the nation became, as it were, the trustee for the capital, and thus originated the Consolidated Fund. Under the operation of the laws of entail and primogeniture, this arrangement has answered admirably well in Great Britain. In the American States, however, where each generation, with a few exceptions, has entire control of the principal of its property, and is not restricted to the income as in England, it is right, and in accordance with the spirit of the institutions of the country, that it should pay its own expenses in full, and not entail a burthen on those that come after it.