BANK OF THE STATE OF THE INDIANA.
On motion by Mr. MURRAY, the order of business was informally passed over and Mr. Conley'a bill (42) to repeal the charter of the Bank of the State of Indiana was taken up for consideration - the question being on the recommendation of the minority of the special committee from which it was reported, to indefinitely postpone.
Mr. BOBBS said circumstances had forced him into this bank controversy against his own desire in the premises; that he was a State Bank man, but if called upon to vote directly on the repeal of this charter he should so vote. The Senator spoke an hour and a half. When he had concluded -
Mr. BEESON demanded the previous question, but withdrew for -
Mr. GOODING, who read a reply to some personal remarks contained in Mr. Heffren's speech last Friday evening.
Mr. BEESON renewed his demand for the previous question, and there being a second, the vote stood - yeas 29, nays 18, as follows:
YEAS - Messrs. Anthony, Beeson, Bennett, Blair, Brown, Cobb, Conner, Cooper, Cravens, Craven, Culver, Hamilton, Heffren, Hill, Johnston, Jones, Line, Miller, Murray, Odell, Rice, Slack, Steele, Stevens, Tarkington, Thompson, Turner, Wagner, Williams - 20,
NAYS - Messrs. Bobbs, Carnahan, Conley, Fisk, Gooding, Hargrove, Hendry, Jennings, Kinley, Lomax, McClure, March, O'Brien, Robinson, Shoemaker, Studabaker, Wallace, Wilson - 18.
ABSENT - Mr. Green.
Mr. McLean paired off with Mr. Weir.
Mr. ANTHONY, when his named was called, said he was a bank man and represented a community finding it necessary to have these institutions. He had nothing against the bank charter as it was designed to be operated by the Legislature; but did object to the manner in which it , has been administered by some of its branches; and when amendments shall be proposed which will restrict them to the construction of their charter as the Legislature designed, he would vote for them. But he must object to repeal, when no better reason is given than that the charter was conceived in sin and brought forth in iniquity. It was not material to him what motives operated upon that General Assembly, the question was, has the Legislature the power to repeal? and if so, is it policy, as a matter of expediency? But some two or three of the twenty-five Senators fresh from the people, would vote for repeal. The withdrawal of the five million of this bank circulation would seriously affect the commerce of the country. He could not assent to the doctrine that the Legislature have not the power of repeal a doctrine which puts it in the power of the Legislature to dispose of franchises in a matter which may directly affect the interests of the people beyond the power of recall. He could not endorse that. But he could not think the people demanded repeal, and if they did it must work to their injury.
Mr. BLAIR, in explanation,said: He found authority for this charter in the Constitution, It was given to certain individuals for 20 years, to furnish a currency. He did not believe this Legislature had the power to take that charter from them at the present time, neither did he believe it would be right to do so. He voted for indefinite postponement.
Mr. CARNAHAN, in explanation, said: He never had recorded himself as a bank roan in any shape or form. He preferred the free bank system as the safest. The war between these bank factions has been of long standing since the Constitutional Convention. They passed page: 148[View Page 148] this charter, uninstructed by the people, and, as I am satisfied, they did it through fraud.
Mr. CONLEY stated his position on the bank question. He had been unjustly charged with being friendly to the free banks. No Senator on this floor was more averse to their worthless trash than himself, &c.
Mr. JONES, explaining, said: Mr. President, it is admitted on all sides that the question now under consideration, is one of vast importance. I desire, therefore, briefly to give some of the reasons that will influence me in giving my vote. First, I desire not to undo the work of a former Legislature without some intimation from those I represent, that they desire such work undone. The charter that is now proposed to be repealed was granted by a former Legislature. Under that charter, banking has commenced; banking-houses have been purchased, and many business transactions entered into; bank bills have been issued, and such bills to a large amount, are now in the hands of the people. I know but little, personally, as to how that charter was obtained, yet I have no doubt but that improper influences contributed to that result, and that the great representative principle, peculiar to our form of government, was violated by the Legislature in granting that charter.
I am aware also that the people I represent on this floor, in 1855 and 1856 were almost united in hoping that our courts would decide against the validity of that charter. They, when they became aware of the frauds practiced in obtaining that charter, were indignant, and for a time looked upon the issues of that bank with distrust. Since that time, however, the stock in that bank has changed hands. Responsible men, and men of known financial skill and integrity control that institution and the consequence is, no one now refuses the paper of that bank; its circulation has become general and the agricultural portion of our people regard it as far more safe than any bank in Indiana. Notwithstanding: all the care and deliberation in framing and guarding the free bank law in Indiana and in other States, the losses to the bill holder have been frequent and disastrous; hence a large portion of the people of Indiana look upon the issues of free banks with distrust and doubt and indulge the hope and belief that the Bank of the State will furnish a safe and secure circulating medium. I am not willing at this time to destroy and dissipate that hope. I am not willing, by any act of mine, to create distrust and suspicion against an institution in our own State, when I know that suspicions thus created, would advance and promote the interests of institutions in other States, where the security of the bill holder is not more reliable than the Bank of the State of Indiana. I would not, however, be understood to admit that we have not the right - that the Legislature has not the right to repeal the bank charter. I make no such admission, and whenever I am convinced that the public interest demands a repeal of the charter, then I will vote for the repeal.
But, Mr. President, some Senators on this floor manifest much feeling on this question. They say that fraud and selfishness procured the charter of this bank, therefore it ought to be repealed. They argue the question as though a few prominent individuals were alone concerned or interested in this question. Were this true, I would not hesitate to vote with them for the repeal. If by so voting, the consequences, however fatal, were to fall alone upon those few prominent men, I say I would not hesitate for one moment. They, no doubt, deserve it all, and more, but I am not willing to jeopardize the interests of the honest thousands in an attempt to punish a few dishonest men. I, therefore, shall vote against the bill.
Mr. LINE, in explanation, said he found constitutional authority for this charter. It had been passed; and the Courts, he understood, had decided that the Legislature have no power to take away franchises thus conferred.
Mr. MILLER, in explanation, said: Mr. President, I have made no speech on this subject, nor do I desire to make one; but perhaps I should explain my vote, and especially as it has become the habit. Perhaps no Senator on this floor has given more votes on the subject of banking in the last eight or nine years than myself. While that subject occupied the attention of the Constitutional Convention for thirteen days, I uniformly voted for the free banking principle, as against State banking; and in the revising Legislature I voted for the Free Banking Act. I was and am opposed to the principle of State banks, as all my votes show, and in giving this vote it may seem not to be in keeping with my former votes. But this bank is now in operation, and its paper is circulating all over the country, and at this time, I think, to repeal the charter, would much embarrass the financial condition of our people. On that account, I vote to indefinitely postpone the bill, pledging myself to vote for any healthy amendments that may come up in any bill for amending the charter.
Mr. RICE, explaining, said: Mr. President: Not having sought or desired to take part in the discussion of this question, which has occupied too much of the time of the Senate, yet I feel it due to myself and to my constituents, to give briefly the reasons which influence me in casting my vote for the indefinite postponement of this bill. They are as follows: 1st. I deem it to be a principle of sound policy as well as of settled law, that neither the Legislature nor the courts of the country have any right to go behind the journals of the Legislature to inquire into the passage of any law, to ascertain what influences were brought to bear on members in the casting of their votes, &c., &c. Were such an inquiry allowed, whole statutes might be overthrown, the Legislation of the country unsettled and the most sacred rights invaded; therefore, assuming the Charter of the Bank of the State to have passed through the constitutional forms necessary to become a law, we are precluded from further scrutinizing the history of its passage. 2d. I hold it to be an incontrovertable proposition that when the terms and conditions of this bank charter were complied with by the corporators, it became a valid and binding contract between the corporation and the State, and that the rights which have accrued to the corporators under that charter are vested rights which the Legislature has no constitutional power to abridge or impair. 3d. As a question of mere policy (inde- page: 149[View Page 149] endent of other considerations,) I should deem it unwise and impolitic to pass this bill repealing the bank charter, which would blot out of existence some $5,000,000 of the best bank currency of the State which is now in the hands of the people - a currency in which the people have confidence and with which the great majority are satisfied. Such an act would most certainly result in the greatest financial distress and embarrassment to the people. Therefore, Mr. President, I vote aye.
Mr. ROBINSON, explaining, begged leave to say he never held on this question any other than anti-bank principles. Banking was systematized public plunder. It might not be good policy to repeal: but he held that no Legislature could bind their successors. He never could endorse the doctrine that the General Assembly of 1855 could sell out his people and this Legislature for 20 years.
Mr. STEVENS: I vote for the indefinite postponement of the bill, for the reasons, 1st, That the people are satisfied with the institution as it is. It has thus far furnished a safe currency for the circulation of the State, a currency that is good in every part of the Mississippi Valley. For one, I do not wish to disturb it, until something is done on the part of its officers to destroy confidence in its management. 2d, I do not believe that any circulating medium could, for years to come, be substituted in its place, that would be as satisfactory to the people of the State as the bills of the Bank of the State of Indiana. I do not wish to be instrumental in destroying a bank that the people approve and endorse, to give place to the issues of foreign bank paper that we know but little about; and the introduction of which into the State, might prove ruinous to the best interests of its citizens. Again, the Supreme Court of the State, has decided the right of the bank to exercise its franchises, as a banking institution, for the term for which it was chartered, and I do not believe the Legislature to have any right to interfere with its operations, unless its charter is violated by the act of those who have control of it.
Mr. TURNER, explaining, said he had participated in the passage of this bank bill in 1855 without knowledge of undue influences to effect its passage; but recent developments satisfied him there was more or less corruption - corruption that should never be countenanced in any legislative body. Notwithstanding that, he now doubted the propriety of repealing this charter satisfied that were it repealed, before the close of the present session another bank bill would be introduced, and the same corrupt influences brought to bear upon it, and probably successfully. [Laughter.]
Mr. WALLACE, explaining, read from the Madison papers extracts going to show the intent of the fathers of these governments to crush out bills of credit, and secure a hard money currency. It was emphatically for the protection of the people - of his constituents - that he voted for this repeal.
So the bill was indefinitely postponed.
Mr. WAGNER moved a reconsideration of this vote, and to lay the motion to reconsider upon the table.
The latter motion was agreed to - yeas 28, nays 18the same as recorded above, except that Mr. Fisk did not vote. and Mr. Turner voted No!
The Senate then adjourned.
