Abridgment of the Debates of Congress, from 1789 to 1856.

226 ABRIDGMENT OF THE SENATE.] Removal of the Deposits. [JANUARY, 1834. provision in relation to the safe keeping of the their increased security; that he has no right public funds, but one of precisely the opposite to order them to be withheld from the bank so character. The 16th section expressly provides long as the funds are in safety, and the bank that the deposits shall be made in the bank has faithfully performed the duties imposed in and its branches; and, of course, it is perfectly relation to them; and not even then, unless clear that all powers which the Secretary has the deposits can be placed in safer and more derived from the general and inherent powers faithful hands. That such was the opinion of of his office, in the absence of such provision, the Executive, in the first instance, we have are wholly inapplicable to this case. Nor is it demonstrative proof in the Message of the Presiless clear that, if the section had terminated dent to Congress at the close of the last session, with the provision directing the deposits to be which placed the subject of the removal of the made in the bank, the Secretary would have deposits exclusively on the question of their had no more control over the subject than my- safety; and that such was also the opinion of self, or any other Senator; and it follows, of the House of Representatives then, we have course, that he must derive his power, not from equally conclusive proof, from the vote of that any general reasons connected with the nature body, that the public funds in the bank were of his office, but from some express provision safe; which was understood at that time on contained in the section, or some other part of all sides, by friends and -foes, as deciding the the act. It has not been attempted to be shown question of the removal of the deposits. that there is any such provision in any other The extent of the power intended to be section or part of the act. The only control, conferred being established, the question now then, which the Secretary can rightfully claim arises-Has the Secretary transcended its limit? over the deposits, is contained in the provision It can scarcely be necessary to argue this point. which directs that the deposits shall be made It is not even pretended that the public deposits in the bank, unless otherwise ordered by the were in danger, or that the bank had not faithSecretary of the Treasury; which brings the fully performed all the duties imposed on it in whole question, in reference to the deposits, to relation to them; nor that the Secretary placed the extent of the power which Congress in- the money in safer or in more faithful hands. tended to confer upon the Secretary, in these So far otherwise, there is not a man who hears few words-" unless otherwise ordered." me who will not admit that the public moneys In ascertaining the intention of Congress, are now less safe than they were in the Bank I lay it down as a rule, which, I suppose, will of the United States. And I will venture to not be controverted, that all political powers assert, that not a capitalist can be found who under our free institutions are trust powers, would not ask a considerably higher percentage and not rights, liberties, or immunities, belong- to insure them in their present, than in the ing personally to the officer. I also lay it place of deposit designated by law. If these down as a rule, not less incontrovertible, that views are correct, and I hold them to be untrust powers are necessarily limited (unless questionable, the question is decided. The there be some express provision to the con- Secretary has no right to withhold the deposits trary) to the subject, matter, and object of the from the bank. There has been, and can be, trust. This brings us to the question-what is but one argument advanced in favor of his the subject and object of the trust in this case? right, which has even the appearance of being The whole section relates to deposits-to the tenable; that the power to withhold is given safe and faithful keeping of the public funds. in general terms, and without qualification, With this view they are directed to be made in " unless the Secretary otherwise direct." Those the bank. With the same view, and in order who resort to this argument must assume the to increase the security, power was conferred position that the letter ought to prevail over on the Secretary to withhold the deposits; the clear and manifest intention of the act. and, with the same view, he is directed to They must regard the power of the Secretary, report his reasons for the removal to Congress. not as a trust power, limited by the subject All have one common object-the security of and the object of the trust, but as a chartered the public funds. To this point the whole right, to be used according to his discretion section converges. The language of Congress, and pleasure. There is a radical defect in our fairly understood, is, we have selected the mode of construing political powers, of which bank, because we confide in it as a safe and this and many other instances afford striking faithful agent, to keep the public money; but, examples; but I will give the Secretary his to prevent the abuse of so important a trust, choice. Either the intention or the letter must we invest the Secretary with power to remove prevail. He may select either, but cannot be the deposits, with a view to their increased permitted to take one or the other as may suit security. And, lest the Secretary, on his part, his purpose. If he chooses the former, he has should abuse so important a trust, and in order transcended his powers, as I have clearly still further to increase that security, we direct, demonstrated. If he selects the latter, he in case of removal, that he shall report his is equally condemned, as he has clearly exerreasons. It is obvious, under this view of the cised power not comprehended in the letter of subject, that the Secretary has no right to act his authority. He has not confined himself in relation to the deposits, but with a view to simply to withholding the public moneys from

Pages

About this Item

Title: Abridgment of the Debates of Congress, from 1789 to 1856.
Author: United States. Congress.
Canvas: Page 226
Publication: New York, [etc.]: D. Appleton and company [etc.]; 1857-61.
Subject terms: United States -- Politics and government

Technical Details

Collection: Making of America Books
Link to this Item: https://name.umdl.umich.edu/ahj4053.0012.001
Link to this scan: https://quod.lib.umich.edu/m/moa/ahj4053.0012.001/228

Rights and Permissions

These pages may be freely searched and displayed. Permission must be received for subsequent distribution in print or electronically. Please go to http://www.umdl.umich.edu/ for more information.

IIIF

Manifest: https://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/api/manifest/moa:ahj4053.0012.001

Cite this Item

Full citation: "Abridgment of the Debates of Congress, from 1789 to 1856." In the digital collection Making of America Books. https://name.umdl.umich.edu/ahj4053.0012.001. University of Michigan Library Digital Collections. Accessed June 10, 2025.

Abridgment of the Debates of Congress, from 1789 to 1856.

Annotations Tools

Actions

About this Item

Technical Details

Rights and Permissions

Related Links

IIIF

Cite this Item