Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB
[ocr errors]

Again: banks never come within the range of politics. You never hear of them as democratic institutions. There is nothing in that, although they were created by the democratic party. They are cherished by the whole state-by both parties combined. They never have any political character. They are institutions for the people, erected for that purpose, for the common benefit of all parties. There has never been any difficulty, never any danger apprehended, until lately, and he contended that if this arbitrary power be given to the legislature, and if the banks are brought into the vortex of politics, we must at last buy their peace. On the one hand, there would be the arbitary power. There might be the dsipositon to use it. What would be done?

He had no

A charter

He would say briefly, that he would put no obstacle in the way of a charter in which the interests of the people are well secured. objection to the provision requiring a majority of two-thirds. improperly obtained, might be abused. What would correct this? arbitrary power, because the banks might buy it up.

Not

In

He would be willing to put in the charter a limitation of dividends. There could be no danger in that. He would be willing to limit the dividends to seven or eight per cent. He would also be willing to give right of process, in case of abuse of charter, to bring the case before the supreme court, and if the court shall decide that the charter has been abused, they shall decide the course by which the charter shall be annulled. case of issues on the liability of the bank, he would be willing that the individual who might be interested should prove the fact. But he would not invest the legislature with an arbitrary power, which might be used to purposes of injustice to the corporations, and injury to the interests of the community.

After imposing a restriction upon the issues of the banks, and granting to the individuals, who say, that they have abused their privileges, an investigation into their concerns, you will have much better security for their proper administration, than in your legislative safety power, which will only put legislation into the hands of the banks, by causing a combination of all the banks against the legislature. Suppose a spirit of extensive speculation to be abroad, which will tempt the banks to expand their circulation, what security have you in the reservation of the right to repeal charters? Will you then go to work and break down all the banks, or modify their charters? The proper way is to limit their issues, and limit their profits, so as to take away the temptation to excessive issues, and then give to individuals the power to sue the banks if they violate their charters; but with the plan now presented, I see nothing in prospect but a strong combination of the banks against the legislature.

The question was then taken on agreeing to the amendment to the amendment, as modified, and decided in the negative as follows:

YEAS Messrs. Banks, Barclay, Bedford, Bell, Bigelow, Eonham, Brown, of Northampton, Brown, of Philadelphia, Clarke, of Indiana, Cleavinger, Crain, Crawford, Cummin, Carl, Darrah, Dillinger, Donagan, Donnell, Doran, Earle, Fleming, Foulkrod, Fuller. Gamble, Gearhart, Grenell, Hastings, Hayhurst, Helffenstein, Hiester, High, Hyde, Ingersoll, Keim, Kennedy, Krebs, Lyons, Magee, Mann, Martin, M'Dowell, Miller, Overfield, Payne, Porter, of Northampton, Purviance, Read, Riter, Ritter, Scheetz, Sellers, Seltzer, Shellito, Smith, of Columbia, Smyth, of Centre, Sterigere, Stickel, Sturdevant, Taggart, Weaver, White, Woodward-62.

Nars-Messrs. Agnew, Ayres, Baldwin, Barndollar, Barnitz, Biddle, Brown, of Lancaster, Carey, Chambers, Chandler, of Chester, Chandler, of Philadelphia, Chauncey, Clapp, Clarke, of Beaver, Clark, of Dauphin, Coates, Cochran, Cope, Craig, Crum, Cunningham, Darlington, Denny, Dickey, Dickerson, Dunlop, Farrelly, Forward, Fry, Harris, Hays, Henderson, of Allegheny, Henderson, of Dauphin, Hopkinson, Houpt, Jenks, Kerr, Konigmacher, Long, Maclay, M'Call, M'Sherry, Meredith, Merrill, Merkel, Montgomery, Pennypacker, Pollock, Porter, of Lancaster, Reigart, Royer, Russell, Saeger, Scott, Serrill, Sill, Snively, Thomas, Todd, Weidman, Young, Sergeant, President--62.

So the question was decided in the negative.

The amendment as offered by Mr. REIGART being under consideration, Mr. STURDEVANT moved to amend the same, by striking therefrom all after the word " corporate," and inserting in lieu thereof the following, viz: "bodies shall hereafter be created or renewed with banking or discounting priveleges, until after six months' notice thereof shall have been given in such manner as may be fixed by law; nor shall any act of incorporation embrace more than one corporate body."

Mr. DUNLOP suggested, that this was the same proposition which had been decided.

Mr. EARLE called for a division of the question.

Mr. DARLINGTON said, this appeared to him to be nothing but the proposition of the gentleman from Lancaster (Mr. Hiester) varied a little in form, and if the convention would sustain him, he would move the previous question.

The motion was seconded and, on the question "Shall the main question be put ?"

The yeas and nays were required by Messrs. DORAN and DICKEY, and were as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Agnew, Ayres, Baldwin, Barndollar, Barnitz, Bell, Biddle, Brown, of Lancaster, Chambers, Chandler of Chester, Chandler, of Philadelphia, Chauncey, Clapp, Clarke, of Beaver, Clark, of Dauphin, Coates, Cochran, Coap, Cox, Craig, Crum, Cunningham, Darlington. Denny, Dickey, Dickerson, Dunlop, Farrelly, Forward, Harits, Hays, Henderson, of Allegheny, Henderson, of Dauphin, Houpt, Jenks, Kerr,·· Konig macher, Long, Maclay, M'Sherry, Meredith, Merrill, Montgomery, Pennypacker, Pollock, Porter, of Lancaster, Royer, Russell, Saeger, Scott, Serrill, Sill, Snively, Thomas, Todd, Weidman, Young, Sergeant, President-58

NAYS-Messrs. Banks, Barclay, Bedford, Brown, of Northampton, Brown, of Philadelphia, Bigelow, Bonham, Carey, Clarke, of Indiana, Cleavinger, Crain, Crawford, Cummin, Curll, Darrah, Dillinger, Donagan, Donnell, Doran, Earle, Fleming, Foulkrol. Fry, Fuller, Gamble, Grenell, Hastings, Hayhurst, Helffenstein, Hiester, High Hopkinson, Hyde, Ingersoll, Keim, Kennedy, Krebs, Lyons, Magee, Mann, Martin, M'Call, M'Dowell, Merkel, Miller, Overfield, Payne, Porter, of Northampton, Purviance, Reigart, Read, Riter, Ritter, Scheetz, Sellers, Seltzer, Shellito, Smyth, of Centre, Sterigere, Stickel, Sturdevant, Taggart, Weaver, White, Woodward--65.

So, the question was determined in the negative.

Mr. STURDEVANT, of Luzerne, moved to amend the amendment by striking all out after the word "corporate," and inserting "bodies shall hereafter be created or renewed with banking or discounting privileges, until after six months' notice thereof shall have been given in such manner as may be fixed by law; nor shall any act of incorporation embrace niore than one corporate body."

Mr. INGERSOLL, of Philadelphia county, asked for the yeas which were ordered.

and nays,

Mr. DUNLOP, of Franklin, observed that this was the most amusing device he had ever heard of in his life. We all knew that the reformers, at least, in this body, had always desired that some restriction should be imposed on the banks, but here was an attempt to restrain the legislature from acting as they might deem proper.

The provision required that six monthly notices should be given before an act of incorporation should be granted, or renewed. It was very probable that some gentlemen would go home, and say that this was to prevent a suspension of specie payments in future. Was it any restriction on banks, or banking corporations? No. If gentlemen chose to vote for the amendment, he should regard it as their scheme for regulating the currency of the state, and doubtless they would get a great deal of credit for sagacity and wisdom in giving it their support!

Mr. DICKEY, of Beaver, said he would vote for the amendment.

Mr. BELL, of Chester, remarked that he would vote against it. It contained no principle.

Mr. BROWN, of Philadelphia county, hoped the friends of reform would not vote for the amendment, nor the amendment to the amendment. The first amounted to nothing, and the last to less than nothing.

The question was taken on the amendment to the amendment, and it was decided in the negative-yeas 61; nays 66.

YEAS-Messrs. Agnew, Ayres, Baldwin, Banks, Barndollar, Barnitz, Biddle, Carey, Chambers, Chandler, of Chester, Chandler, of Philadelphia, Chauncey, Clapp, Clarke, of Beaver, Clark, of Dauphin, Cochran, Cope, Cox, Craig, Crum, Cunningham, Darlington, Denny, Dickey, Dickerson, Dunlop, Farrelly, Forward, Harris, Hays, Henderson, of Allegheny, Henderson, of Dauphin, Hopkinson, Jenks, Kerr, Konigmacher, Long, Maclay, M'Cali, M'Sherry, Meredith, Merrill, Merkel, Montgomery, Pennypacker, Pollock, Porter, of Lancaster, Purviance, Royer, Russell, Saeger, Scott, Serrill, Sill, Snively, Sturdevant, Thomas, Todd, Weidman, Young, Sergeant, President-61. NAYS Messrs. Barclay, Bedford, Bell, Bigelow, Bonham, Brown, of Lancaster, Brown, of Northampton, Brown, of Philadelphia, Clarke, of Indiana, Cleavinger, Coats, Crain, Crawford, Cummin, Curll, Darrah, Dillinger, Donagan, Donnell, Doran, Earle, Fleming, Foulkrod, Fry, Fuller, Gamble, Gearhart, Grenell, Hastings, Hayhurst, Helffenstein, Hiester, High, Houpt, Hyde, Ingersoll, Keim, Kennedy, Krebs, Lyons, Magee, Mann, Martin, M'Cahen, M'Dowell, Miller, Nevin, Overfield Payne, Porter, of Northampton, Reigart, Read, Riter, Ritter, Scheetz, Sellers, Seltzer, Shellito, Smith, of Columbia, Smyth, of Centre, Sterigere, Stickel, Taggart, Weaver, White, Woodward-66.

Mr. REIGART moved to modify by striking out "loaning," and inserting before "discounting" the word "or."

The modification was agreed to.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM expressed the hope that the gentleman from Lancaster (Mr. Reigart) would modify his proposition in some way so as to render it less exceptionable in some particulars. There was an inaccuracy of expression in the last paragraph, which he said he would not like to see introduced into a clause of the constitution. It says no corporate body shall be heroafter created, &c. without the concurrent action of two successive

legislatures. There can be no "two legislatures." There is but one There 'legislature," though it may hold sessions at different times.

66

may be two sessions of a legislature, but not "two legislatures." Does the amendment refer to any other legislature out of the state? There is but one legislature within the state. I would like to see the amendment so modified as to conform to the language of our laws. Perhaps the gentleman intends two or three legislatures, one in Pittsburg, one in Lancaster, and one in Harrisburg, neither the gentleman's amendment nor his colleagues is sufficiently definite.

Mr. REIGART. My amendment is sufficiently plain for the comprehension of any mind.

Mr. HOPKINSON moved to amend the amendment, by striking therefrom all after the word "created," and inserting in lieu thereof the following, viz: "or renewed with banking or discounting privileges without public notice having been given of the application, at least three months, in the place where such corporation is to be located, nor shall any law hereafter enacted, create or renew more than one corporate body."

This proposition, said Mr. Hopkinson, certainly does meet and obviate what are called the great evils of legislation, on the subject of corporations. It is said that applications for charters are suddenly sprung upon the legislature, when no one dreams of them. No one, it is said, knew of the intention of the Bank of the United States, to apply for a charter until the same was announced; that the people had not time to consider the question, nor to select or instruct their representatives in regard to it, and that they had no opportunity to express their sentiments upon it. This difficulty is obviated by the amendment which I propose. It brings home the subject of the proposed application for a charter to the people who are most interested in it, in the place where the corporation is to be located. The objection that charters are sprung opon the people, is thus obviated, and if the people do wish the charter, the legislature have the right to grant it. The second prominent objection to the present system is, that log-rolling is encouraged and produced by the practice of putting more than one act of incorporation in one bill. This practice I propose to prevent, by providing that no law shall hereafter create or renew more than one corporate body. It can be well understood, that when three or four corporations are put in one law, the friends of each form a majority of the whole, though neither corporation might, of itself, command a majority of votes. The amendment fully meets the two great evils which are complained of, and omits the provision of the present amendment, which requires the action of two legislatures; a provision that would be found inconvenient, and in many respects, objectionable.

Mr. BROWN, of the county of Philadelphia, hoped, he said, that the friends of reform would vote down all these small beer propositions, come they from small casks or from large casks. It would be better to have the action of two legislatures than any other provision.

Mr. HOPKINSON said, the gentleman from the county, had better have risen to give some reason against the proposition, than merely to issue his mandate to his party.

Mr. BROWN said, he only rose to express his own wishes on the subject, and he apprehended that the convention would appreciate the gentleman's argument, without any reason from him.

Mr. READ rose, he said, to answer in one word, the argument of the gentleman from the city, (Mr. Hopkinson.) There is nothing of substance in his amendment, and I hope it will not be agreed to. It will not prevent log-rolling, and it will leave the legislature at liberty to put into bills relating to any subject, a clause creating corporations.

The question was then taken on the amendment to the amendment, and determined in the negative, as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Agnew, Ayres, Baldwin, Banks, Barndollar, Barnitz, Biddle, Carey, Chambers, Chandler, of Chester, Chandler, of Philadelphia, Chauncey, Clapp, Clarke, of Beaver, Clark, of Dauphin, Coates, Cochran, Cope, Cox, Craig, Crum, Cunningham, Darlington, Denny, Dickey, Dickerson, Dunlop, Farielly, Forward, Haris, Hays, Henderson, of Allegheny, Henderson, of Dauphin, Hopkinson, Heupt, Jenks, Kerr, Konigmacher, Long, Macay, Magee,, McCall, McSherry, Meredith, Merr.1, Merkel, Montgomery, Pennypacker, Pollock, Porter, of Lancaster, Royer, Russell, Saeger, Scott, Seltzer, Sill, Snively, Sturdevant, Thomas, Todd, Weidman, Young, Sergeant, President-63.

NAYS-Messrs. Barclay, Bedford, Bell, Bigelow, Bonham, Brown, of Nothampton, Brown, of Philad Iphia, Clarke, of Indiana, Cleavinger, Crain, Crawford, Cummin, Curll, Darrah, Dillinger, Donagan, Donnell, Doran, Erle, Fleming, Foulkrod, Fry, Fuller, Gamble, Gearhart, Gilmore, Grenell, Hastings, Hayhurst, Helffenstein, Hiester, High, Hyde, Ingersoll, Keim, Kennedy, Krebs, Lyons, Mann, Martin, M'Cahen, McDowell, Miller, Nevin. Overfield, Payne, Porter, of Northampton, Reigart, Read, Riter, Ritter, Scheetz, Sellers, Seltzer, Shellito, Smith, of Columbia, Smyth, of Centre, Sterigere, Stickel, Taggart, Weaver, White, Woodward-63.

So the question was determined in the negative.

Mr. STERIGERE moved to amend the amendment by striking therefrom all after the word "legislature," and inserting in lieu thereof, the following, viz:

"And no such charter shall be created, renewed or continued for a longer period than years, and every such charter may be altered or repealed by the legislature, whenever in their opinion the same may be injurious to the citizens of the commonwealth. No law shall contain a grant of privileges to more than one corporation."

Mr. BELL said, that it was perfectly obvious, that, although a majority of the body was in favor of introducing into the constitution, some restrictions of the legislature in relation to banks, and the power of the legisla ture to grant bank charters; it was also obvious that the friends of that principle must so mould their proposed amendments, that even captiousness cannot take offence at them, nor ingenuity raise objections to them. He had, therefore prepared an amendment which he thought would meet the views of a majority of the members of the house. He did not object to the features of the amendment before the convention; but, because he believed it was not acceptable to a majority of the members of the body, as was evident by the various votes which had been taken, he asked the gentleman who had introduced it, as a reformer, and as a gentleman desirous of engrafting some such provision upon the constitution, whether it was prudent to push upon the convention a proposition which it must be known, would not meet the views and receive the sanction of a majority of the members of the body. He would not ask the gentleman, who had submitted the last proposition, to withdraw it, before he laid it before him for his consideration, an amendment which he (Mr. B.) flattered

« AnteriorContinuar »