FRIDAY, JANUARY 12, 1838.

Mr. DARLINGTON. of Chester, presented a remonstrance from citizens of Chester county, against any change in the constitution, making the rights of citizenship and suffrage, dependant upon the cemplexion of the individual; which was laid on the table.

Mr. COATES, of Lancaster, presented a remonstrance from citizens of Chester county, similar in its character; which was also laid on the table.

Mr. THOMAS, of Chester, presented a remonstrance, similar in its import, from the same quarter; which was also laid on the table. Mr. CLARKE, of Beaver, submitted the following resolution, which was laid on the table for future consideration, viz:

1

Resolved, That the eleventh rule be amended to read as follows, viz: No delegat when speaking shall be interrupted, except by a call to order by the president, or by a delegate through the president, or by a member to explain, or by a motion for the previous question; nor shall any deleg te be referred to by name in debate, unless for a transgression of the rules of the convention, and then by the president only."

FIRST ARTICLE.

The convention resumed the second reading of the report of the committte to whom was referred the first article of the constitution, as reported by the committee of the whole.

The question being on the amendment submitted by Mr. HIESTER, to the amendment of Mr. REIGART, striking therefrom, all preceding the word "nor," and inserting, as follows:

"The legislature shall not grant or renew any charter of incorporation, until after three months' public notice of the application for the same shall have been given in such manner as shall be prescribed by law. Nor shall any corporation hereafter created, possessing banking, discounting, or loaning privileges, be continued for more than fifteen years without renewal; and, no such corporation shall be created, extended or revived, whose charter may not be modified, altered or repealed by the concurrent action of two successive legislatures, subject to an equitable and just indemnification."

Mr. HIESTER rose and modified his amendment, so as to read as follows, viz:

"No corporate body shall be hereafter created, renewed or extended, with banking or discounting privileges, without six months' public notice of the application for the same, in such manner as may be prescribed by law. Nor shall any charter for the purposes aforesaid, be granted for a longer period than twenty years; and, every such charter shall contain a clause reserving to the legislature the power to alter, revoke and annul the same, whenever, in their opinion, they may be injurious to the citizens of

the commonwealth.

one corporate body."

No law hereafter enacted shall contain more than

Mr. JENKS, of Bucks, rose and said, he did not happen to be in the hall yesterday, when the gentleman from the county of Philadelphia, (Mr. Martin) made an attack on the directors of the Bucks Bank. The gentleman had said that the directors had divided the money among themselves, and issued spurious notes. This was a mistake. No men were of more honorable standing than these gentlemen. The charge was not true. One officer belonging to that bank had behaved improperly, and was immediately discharged. It was true there were counterfeit notes of the bank, but the directors were not to blame for this. What bank is there whose notes are not counterfeied? The farmers of Bucks, who had acquired fortunes by their industry, were the directors of this bank, and he was sorry that any delegate should have thought it proper to asperse them.

Mr. MARTIN explained. He thought that he had been sufficiently guarded. Expressions used in debate may be easily altered and twisted from their proper meaning. But, when the gentleman from Allegheny, called on the gentleman from Bucks to say, if there had been any stock jobbing, what was the answer which must be given? Seventeen years ago, he knew that the bank had misappropriated funds, and the president issued spurious notes, signed by his own name, and flooded the country with them. He himself had the honor to possess one ten dollar note of this description, and lost it. He did not believe that these officers were now in the administration of the affairs of the bank. They were either all dead, or had run away. He was not about to detract from the standing of the present officers of the bank. How was the gentleman to whom he had alluded made the president? The gentleman from Bucks, could say more on this subject if he pleased.

The gentleman from Bucks on his left, (Mr. M'Dowell) could not say much about it, as perhaps, he was not born long enough ago to know any thing of the facts. As to the directors of the Bank of the Northern Liberties, he had understood that they combined and used all the funds of the bank, and that the widows and orphans, who were holders of its stock, lost the whole. The gentleman from Allegheny had called on the delegates from Philadelphia, to give information, and I (said Mr. M.) touched lightly the facts in reply. The gentleman from Allegheny, had also called on the delegates from Delaware. Will they say what they knew? What will they say? They cannot say that the directors of the old Delaware bank, at Chester, appropriated part of its funds to their own use; but, it is thought there was something irregular in their course. As to the other institutions, he was aware, that two faces could be put on every transaction. What had he to do any more with the bank of Bucks than any other? Nothing. He would only say, that there had been complaints from every quarter, and as we, who have taken a stand against these abuses are beaten down, and taunted, we have a right to use these facts. If we are beaten, it will be like the beating of King Darius, three such victories would be enough to destroy any nation. We have come

here to carry out the will of our constituents, and we are bound to do all that we can in discharge of our duty. But, if it is to be continually rung in our ears, that the banks have vested rights, and that nothing can or

must touch vested rights; let us, at least, have an opportunity to say, we differ with some of those who advocate these principles.

10

Mr. RITER, of Philadelphia county, said his colleague was mistaken as the northern bank.

Mr. MARTIN resumed.

He meant to vote for the amendment. He was about to say, the gentleman from Pittsburg said the banks must not be touched with hands unhallowed; because that Pittsburg had been raised from a commencement with a single glass manufactory, and eighty thousand dollars, to a large city employing profitably millions of capital by the aid which it had received from banks. If he might be allowed to say, from what evidence he had in his possession, how the United States Bank had carried on, when it had its branch in the west-perhaps at Maysville, in Kentucky-he could shew how she put them under way, then when their bills became due, told them that they could not have new discounts; but, that she would let them have domestic bills, and then, by various changes, swelled the discounts to sixteen or seventeen per cent. He had been told by a gentleman from the west, that such was the extent of the usury practiced there, that no country could stand it. He could not say positively that it is so. But hear say evidence in this case was as good as it was in the argument of the gentleman from Allegheny. It had been the complaint, over and over again, that the banks of the commonwealth were fleecing the people. He would read some evidence from the report of the joint committee, appointed to examine the affairs of the bank. The document had been taken from his taule, and was doubtless in the hands of able attornies.

"One of the directors, Mr. John T. Sullivan, stated that one broker had received during one year $214,526, at five per cent, while good business paper, amounting to $1,500,000, which would have paid six and three quarters per cent, had been rejected. Whether his opinion, of the quality of all this paper be correct or not, the joint committee do not pretend to determine. There was sufficient evidence to convince them that brokers had been indulged to too great an extent.”

What was all this paper thrown out for? Was it not the money of Pennsylvania, which was in the bank, and ought it not to have been applied to sustain the business of Pennsylvania? He would not go any further into this subject, unless he was required to do so. In conclusion, (said Mr. M.) suffer me to say, that I have no disposition to affect the characters of those respectable directors who now control the Bank of the Northern Liberties.

He believed there were none of those there now who had any thing to do with the rascally transactions to which he had adverted, for such they were when they ruined the widows and orphans who held the stock. He did not mean to say, that the present officers were not different men, as was the case in the bank of Bucks, where the officers are different from those engaged in the transaction, sixteen or seventeen years agobefore the birth of the gentleman from Bucks, on his left. He had not stated that the directors of the Delaware, had appropriated the funds to their own use.

Mr. SERRILL, of Delaware. Such a thing never occurred in the Delaware Bank.

Mr. MARTIN resumed.

I stated that the Bank of Southwark had been useful to the people, but had shaved notes. It was run upon in consequence of the difficulties in which it was involved, and its doors were crowded by the holders of its notes. My object is to shew that the practices of banks are such that they are not entitled to stand above every class of men who tread the soil of this commonwealth. The people will not consent that there shall be no alteration in the constitution, in relation to these corporation? There are numbers who can prove the existence of these gross abuses. I might go much further in the exposition of them. They are no secretsthey are not things done in a corner. They would be known. It must grow out of such a state of things, that the people will demand a remedy for these evils, and we who stand here to advocate their rights, and sustain their will, will not be driven from our point. The voice of the people must and will be heard.

Let us look at

Why shall we disobey and neglect the voice of the people? It cries out against these abuses. Public opinion is coming at last. It is heard in every part of the commonwealth. It was expected that we should act upon this subject, and the people now require it of us. the subject, and treat it in the manner which it deserves. Let us not view it as if we were prostrate before the banks, and ready to call upon them to put their foot upon our necks.

But

Mr. BIDDLE had hoped, he said, that the language used by the gentleman from the county of Philadelphia, against some of our most worthy citizens, was hasty and inconsiderate, and would not be persisted in. hearing these unjust imputations deliberately repeated, and insisted upon by the gentleman, he felt that justice and truth required that a direct contradiction of them should be openly and boldly made. It is a very easy thing to cast odium upon banks, and upon individuals connected with them. But it was due to his neighbors and fellow citizens, to say that the charge against them, had no foundation in fact. The gentleman thought proper to charge the directors of the bank with having divided the funds of the bank among them.

MI. MARTIN did not wish, he said, to say a word of the directors of that bank. He wished to be understood as not bringing any charge against the present or former respectable directors of that bank.

Mr. BIDDLE was glad to hear from the gentleman that he had not intended to cast any imputations upon the present or former directors of that bank.

It is an easy thing, sir, to bring charges, but when they are met, they are often frittered away to nothing, or are found to be only the bold allegations of slander. This I do not apply to the gentleman from the County, but I do say, that slander has been very busy, in regard to the conduct of the bank referred to. The fact is, that a treacherous bookkeeper, combining with an individual, not connected with the bank, did rob the bank, and the stockholders of a large sum. As well might the directors of the bank be charged with the crimes of the midnight robber as with this offence. If honest men are denounced, because those who

happen to be in their employ, become victims of depravity, few will

escape.

The president and directors of that bank stand above any reproach or suspicion. The president is one of the most worthy and respectable men in the country, and are he and the directors, and the very worthy officers of the bank, to have the finger of scorn pointed at them, because an individual employed in the bank, betrayed his trust?

But the gentleman is not content with assailing his fellow citizens in the city and county of Philadelphia. but he must travel into the neighborhood, and asperse the character of respectable men there. The directors of the Bank of Southwark, are also assailed. Is it thus that the crusade against the banks is to be carried on? A warfare which requires such means to sustain it, must indeed be unholy.

Mr. BROWN, of the county of Philadelphia, said, that all these personal matters had passed away some days since, and we were now prepared, he hoped, to confine our attention to the question as it is. The history of the past frauds, and nismanagement of banks, will be of but little aid to us, in forming a fundamental rule for their restriction in future, and I regret, said Mr. B., that my colleague has pursued that subject further. I believe it is the sense of a majority of this convention, that some restriction should be placed upon the banks, for the purpose of preventing them from improvidently or corruptly granting charters for their incorporation. There is a disposition to provide, in the first place, that the public be made acquainted with the intention of the parties, to apply for a charter, and, in the next place, to subject that charter, when granted, to the control and revision of the legislature. The amendment is opposed by some, but it has many advocates among both of the political parties represented here.

The great principle that the legislature has a right, at all times, to repeal a charter, has been openly and warmly controverted of late. Knowing as I do, that it was always the policy of Pennsylvania, to reserve a right to repeal any charter, and knowing that the legislature have, in one į rominent instance, abandoned this good and wholesome rule, and attempted to put a bank charter beyond the control of the people, I think it necessary to prevent them from doing it again. The latter clause, providing that the incorporation be indemnified in case of repeal, I do not approve. I wish it to be a part of the contract, if it is a contract, that the legislature shall repeal the charter without restriction or indemnity, whenever they shall find it proper to do so,—though, for my own part, I consider it as a grant of a privilege, and not as a contract. All the charters granted by the legislature of Pennsylvania, to banking incorporations, excepting that granted to the United States Bank of Pennsylvania, provide that the legis lature may have full power to alter and revoke the same. All the banks in the state, hold their charters subject to this repealing clause, cxcept the Bank of the United States.

How can gentlemen say that no prudent man will invest money in the stock of a bank whose existence depends upon the will of the people, as expressed through their representatives, when they have done it. Every legislature except one, has considered it their imperative duty to insert a clause in every charter, providing for its repeal, in case the legislature hould see fit to repeal it. I am not disposed to go backward on this