"Resolved, That we still adhere to our opposition to the United States Bank, and believe that it was chartered through fraud, and the people have, through their representatives, a perfect and constitutional right to rescind its charter.'

They even go further and say

46

Resolved, That the system of granting corporate privileges, heretofore pursued by the legislature, is productive of much injury to private and individual enterprise, and that such a course, unless unavoidable circumstances render it necessary, is deserving of public censure."

The committee, in their preamble, say:

"Under the auspices of the state administration, bills increasing banking capital to an extent hitherto without a parellel, have been the engrossing object of the party in power. Corporations, conferring privileges for a long tenure of years, have crept on the statute book, in the place of the more wholesome and salutary subjects of legislation. Bribes, under the familiar disguise of bonuses, have been the price of parliamentary action; and, in short, the whole aim and all-engrossing object of the administration, and its followers has been, not how the people could be best served--but how their political friends could be the most effectually advanced, regardless of the price or the consequences. These evils demand a thorough and energetic reform. The banking system, heretofore restrained by the democracy of the state, has now become the arbitrary dispenser of the terms on which legislation may be purchased. The chain of their influence, link by link, is fast gathering round the liberties of the people, and if the strong hand of power does not avert the calamity threatened, republicanism and liberty are but an empty sound, "signifying nothing."

Another of the resolutions of the committee, is:

“Resolved, That we are in favor of judicions reform-particularly the abolishment of life tenures in office-the abridgment of the executive patronage the restriction of corporate privileges-and a more general extension of the rights of suffrage-that, the democratic delegates from this county in convention, be requested to urge the adoption of these measures, and they will more forcibly add to the obligation we already owe them."

Mr. DUNLOP explained. He expressed his regret that the gentleman from Luzerne (Mr. Woodward) should have misapprehended what he had said. He had not used the language attributed to him his argument was that there was nothing before the people, either in their petitions, or the proceedings of public meetings, that went to indicate a wish that further restrictions should be imposed on the legislature, in relation to bank char

ters.

Mr. WOODWARD Continued. However ultra his opinions might be considered, there were gentlemen on this floor, who entertained some equally as ultra. And, although it might do for gentlemen of a certain party to claim all the talent, all the decency, and now all the morality, yet it was consoling to know that he (Mr. W.) was fully supported in what he had said, by his independent and unpurchasable constituents. He maintained

that notwithstanding all that had been said or intimated to the contrary, there was some morality among those who thought the right to repeal charters should be reserved.

He would now speak of the amendment of the delegate from the county of Lancaster, (Mr. Iliester) which prohibited the repeal of a charter, except by the concurrent action of two successive legislatures. He (Mr. W.) could have desired that the delegate had modified his amendment, so as to require but one legislature to repeal an act, because, then, the ridicule of the gentleman from Franklin, in relation to it, would have been entirely out of place.

He (Mr. W.) wished something to be inserted in the constitution, relative to the repeal of charters hereafter to be granted, and perhaps the power ought to be reserved to a single legislature; but, he conceived it highly probable that a majority of the convention would not go for that, therefore it would be well to reserve the power for two successive legislatures, to prevent controversy hereafter. The last clause of the amendment was in these words:

“And no such corporation shall be created, extended, or revived, whose charter may not be modified, altered, or repealed, by the concurrent action of two successive legislatures, subject to an equitable and just indemnification.

Now, the charters of those banks, at present in existence, might be repealed without the concurrence of two legislatures.

The amendment relates to charters hereafter to be renewed or granted, and as one bank has been chartered without any restriction, others may be. In order to guard against future abuses, we should lay the power of revocation, deep and strong in the constitution of the commonwealth.

In reference to the indemnity to be granted, let the power be exercised by two successive legislatures, rather than leave it doubtful. Let us put it there, in order to prevent the legislature from giving unlimited power to any bank, and to prevent any corporation from wringing from a legisla ture an ill-merited charter. The principle which we radicals or destructives, as we are called, seek to establish, is the great and salutary one, that the state has a right to control all corporations, and to repeal or alter any grants of power made under charters of incorporation. Every inch of privilege and right belonging to the people originally, and not to corporations, must be defended by us, the radicals, and we will defend it against the power of all the banks which the legislature has chartered, with or without an express reservation of the rights of the people. The rights of the many are the superior rights. They have the highest claim upon us.. When these rights are bundled up and thrown into the hands of corporations, we want to have the way easy and open to resume them. We will not wrong even our oppressors. We will give full pecuniary indemnity;: but we wish to reserve to ourselves the right of rescuing ourselves and our children from the tyranny of these soulless corporations. I think too much is required of us when we are asked to agree to a provision which allows one legislature to grant a charter which it will take two legislatures to repel; but we will take even this if we can get nothing more. When we get this, we will go home and tell our constituents that we labored

long and faithfully to induce members to give us some constitutional restriction, which would not be deemed ridiculous, and which would be adapted to its end, and that this was the best and the only restriction that we could prevail upon them agree to. We can tell them that some ridiculed us, and that others denounced us as immoral and as the advocates of principles destructive of the foundations of civil society. We can tell them that age and experience, and wit and wisdom were against us, and, most of all, that the majority was against us; and, in fine, that we were obliged to take this or nothing. This, sir, is what we must say. can do nothing, in consequence of the panic and odium raised by moral and religious, but designing people, about the danger of touching the banks, and of giving the people their rights.

ture.

We

The Bank of the United States was chartered under the influence of a panic got up in this same way, and it was chartered by a minority legislaThere is not a single advocate of the bank in this body, who dares to submit the question to the people of Pennsylvania: "Shall the Bank of the United States continue to exist?" But when we raise the question whether we shall have the power to repeal a charter when, in the opinion of all mankind, it is necessary to repeal it, we are silenced and put down, and told that the bank shall not be touched. Perhaps it can never be got rid of, but it was incorporated in violation of the popular will of the state, and, if any doubt it, let us submit the question to the people and let them decide it.

It was in direct violation of the will of the people of Pennsylvania, and he asked of gentlemen on what grounds they could think of passing this amendment. He voted in favor of the principle which required two successive legislatures to pass a bill of this kind, and he was also favorably inclined towards the principle contained in the other gentleman's amendment. He was inclined to think that he would vote for the amendment of the gentleman from Lancaster, (Mr. Hiester) first, and then for the amendment of the gentleman on his left, as amended.

Mr. BELL said, as he supposed it was not intended now to take the question, he moved an adjournment, which motion was disagreed to.

Mr. MERRILL had hoped when gentlemen introduced propositions of this kind, that they would have some strong arguments to bring forward in support of them, and, that a reasonable time would be given for their consideration, but he had heard no good reason for the adoption of this amendment, and he feared the question would be passed without giving sufficient time for its consideration. He had many strong and serious objections to the amendment of the gentleman from Lancaster, (Mr. Hiester) besides those which had been suggested by other gentlemen who had spoken, and he trusted it would not be adopted by the convention.

Gentlemen have charged the legislature with all kinds of corruption, and it it is the hundredth part as bad as they represent it, he took it they ought not to confer this power upon it. It seemed to him, on this question, gentlemen had shown great inconsistency. They have said that the legislature in chartering banks, have, in many instances, misrepresented the will of the people, and have in some cases been corrupt. Well, if this is the case, will they not misrepresent the will of the people in the taking away of bank charters; and may they not do this from corrupt motives? He

did not say they would do so, but if they acted improperly in one case, might they not as easily do so in the other? If the legislature has misrepresented the will of the people, can gentlemen, by this amendment, command it or bind it so that it will not do so again? He thought not. But gentlemen seemed to be placed in a strange position in relation to this matter, as it seemed in their opinion, that the legislature only erred when a bank was to be chartered.

Now, gentlemen either believed that the legislature was corrupt and bad, or that it was not. Well, if the members of that body betray their trust and disregard the will of the people in the chartering of a banking institntion, will they not do the same in the repeal of a charter? It seemed to him that the course of argument which had been pursued here, was entirely wrong and ought not to be continued. The gentleman from Luzerne, as well as other gentlemen, had told us a grest deal about the corruption of another body of men like our own body, and now sitting in another place.

Gentlemen have told us of the violations of instructions, and of the sacred will of the people, committed by that body, but he has not recurred to the fact that it is possible for us to run counter to the will of the people of Pennsylvania. Is it not just as likely that we are acting contrary to the will and wishes of the people in much that we do, as it is that the legislature has done so? Gentlemen may get up here and denounce the legislature as being corrupt, and members of that body may retaliate and denounce us. This is a state of things which ought to be avoided, and he hoped gentlemen would forbear from this kind of crimination. It was, however, not only the legislature which was subject to this kind of attack, but it was all who opposed the destruction of the existing constitution. This he took to be very unkind in gentlemen. He was disposed to go as far as he could, consistent with his duty, but he was not to be driven from his principles by this kind of abuse. He always endeavored to do his duty in every situation in which he was placed, and he desired not to have his motives questioned in consequence of his acts.

Mr. WOODWARD explained. He had not spoken of the motives of gentlemen he had spoken merely of corporations.

Mr. MERRILL. Where is the difference between the act and the result of the act? When you speak of the motives of corporations, you must mean the motives of those who manage them. He could draw no such distinction as the one drawn by the gentleman from Luzerne, but he would pursue this no further. Gentlemen have said, however, that the power exists now to repeal all charters, because that public necessity must supersede private rights. This seemed to be the ground of argument of many gentlemen. Now he admitted that houses, and lands, and all other private property, might be taken for public use, but he denied entirely, that private property could be taken for no use, and destroyed. He apprehended there was a wide difference in the two cases. The government had a right to take any private property in time of public exigency and war, and apply it to defence, but it had no right to take such property when it had no use for it whatever, and this was the proper distinction to be drawn in these cases.

Here is an institution which brings innumerable blessings on the state, and yet it is said that it ought to go down. It is said that the legislature

which chartered it, did not represent the will of the people of the state. I do not believe that it misrepresented it, and do believe that the act of incorporation which they granted, was a useful and beneficial thing for the state of Pennsylvania.

We

Believing the banks to be useful to us, we wish to secure and protect them. The gentleman from Luzerne says, if they don't like the terms which we impose upon them let them go away. But we do not wish to drive them out of the state, or to prevent their usefulness in the state. If we drive them out, they will invest their money in other states. shall thus impoverish ourselves and enrich our neighbors. If banking incorporations are beneficial to the state and conducive to the prosperity of the country, must they be so restricted as to prevent them from carrying on or engaging in any business. Will any set of men put their money under the arbitrary will of the majority of the legislature? If we adopt the proposed restrictions, with the limitation of fifteen years to the duration of a charter, we shall drive much banking capital out of the state. The existing banks can have no desire that other banks should be incorporated They cannot endure rivals. When the struggle takes place for the renewal of charters, how will the small counties, with a single representative, fare?

The counties with a single member, will not have influence enough to get a renewal. The large counties, by combining together, as they will do in the scramble, will engross all the banking incorporations. The interests of the small counties, will be thus utterly neglected. It is the small banks, in the small and poor neighborhoods, that would be crushed by the restrictions, and not the large banks, in the large and influential cities and towns. I disclaim any favor or affection for the banks, except so far as I believe them to promote the people's interest. Why should banking business be done by corporations? Because wealthy men will not risk all that they have in a bank. They will risk only a portion of their money in a joint stock with others. But it is important to the people to have the care of their money through the banks, and therefore we are in favor of these corporations. I apprehend that there is a disposition to come to some compromise on this subject, and I think it can be done to-morrow morning. Under that impression, I move an adjournment.

The convention then adjourned, to meet at half past nine to-morrow morning.