fore, the amendment of the gentleman from Har-
ford, instead of restricting the issues of the
banks, would have an opposite effect.
The gentleman from Calvert proposed to make
stockholders liable to depositors and note-holders.
In England, the banks were joint stock compa-
nies, and as well as he recollected, (for he had
recently turned his attention to the subject.) the
stockholders were limited to a small number, and,
like a commercial firm, were individually accoun-
table for all losses. The stockholders there,
really managed all the affairs of the banks, while
in this country, every thing was left in the hands
of officers and directors, whose dishonesty or im-
prudence were more likely to injure the owners
of shares, who were frequently women and chil-
dren, than note-holders, who had a better oppor-
tunity of taking care of their interests. To show
that his opinions on this subject had not been re-
cently formed, he read an extract from his mes-
sage to the legislature in 1839.
Mr SOLLERS said:
That he did not propose to say that an officer
of a Bank should not put in a note, and obtain
the money for it. The meaning of his proposi-
tion was that they should not borrow from the
bank, and if they did so, they should be punished.
He saw no sort of objection to the proposition
from the authority read by the gentleman from
Queen Anne's.
Mr. SPENCER made some remarks which will
be published hereafter.
Mr. SOLLERS desired to know if it had come to
this, that the banks of the State of Maryland had
such an overshadowing influence over the people
of Maryland as to create the enormous panic re-
ferred to by the gentleman from Queen Anne's ?
Was it not lime for them to put down this tre-
mendous influence? Did not gentlemen recol-
lect that General Jackson took the deposits from
the bank of the United States, because of the
enormous influence it exercised over the policy
and politics of the country ? And now the gen-
tleman himself, adisciple of that sect, one who
had learned law at the feet of Gamabel, although
he had declared and avowed the influence of the
banks, went directly in favor of maintaining that
influence.
Now, the very object of his proposition was
to restrict this enormous influence, and little did
he expect that the quintescence of democracy,
one who had warred in the legislature for years
and years, and at a much more important place
for him, on the hustings against corporations—
little did he expect that he would raise this oppo-
sition.
The times were sadly out of joint, and he
never was more astonished when he heard this
opposition coming from the distinguished gentle-
man from Queen Anne's. One thing prevented
him from being more astonished than he was,
because these gentlemen agreed to sacrifice them-
selves that Baltimore might obtain an increase of
of representation. That was one anomaly—here
was another, if this tremendous influence did
exist, if it was a fact that they were bound down
by these banks, that they were as slaves, it was |
time that the people, in the exercise of their sovereign
power—and they were the people—should
restrain them, and put some limit upon the ex-
ercise of this power. There was not a single
proposition to which the gentleman from Queen
Anne's had been opposed but what he had held
out this threat—that if they did this thing or that
thing, so certain as the sun rose, the Constitution
would be rejected,
Gentlemen of the democratic party, said, (Mr.
S,) I intended, please God, to try you. I intend
to have your names recorded on the adoption of
this proposition.
Mr. BREST, of Baltimore city, believed that
if this proposition should pass, it would have the
effect to prevent the re-charter of any banks; for
he did not believe that in the State of Maryland
they could get gentlemen who were willing to
become stockholders, to be responsible to the
amount of the debts of a bank. For himself, he
would rather see a bold proposition at once. and
he was prepared to vote tor a proposition simi-
lar to the clause in the constitution of the State
of Louisiana, leaving the whole matter open to
private competition. He was in favor of having
akind of free banking laws, which he believed
would answer the purposes, even of the com-
mercial city of Baltimore. It seemed to him
that the necessary effect of the proposition of
the gentleman from Calvert would be to bring
about such a state of things, and he was there-
fore prepared to vote for it. He knew that in
England a vast amount of private business was
done by private bankers, and he bad no doubt
that more accommodations were afforded by
private capitalits than by the banks of England.
But he believed that these banks should not be
abolished, because at the time of an expansive
credit a great many of the business men in the
community might receive temporary accommo-
dations to a small amount; but when there was
a difficulty in the money market, every man who
was indebted to the banks, was compelled to
pay at once, while every bank favorite behind
the curtain could receive accommodations, of
which no one knew anything. It was suggested
to him that in the District of Columbia the Con-
gress of the United States having refused to re-
charter the banks, the entire banking business
of Washington city was carried on by private
unincorporated banks. There were trustees in-
stead of directors, in such banks—in point of fact
they had no corporate power whatever.
The gentleman from Queen Anne [Mr. Spen-
cer,] had said that the farming interest would be
ruined by the adoption of such a proposition
as this. How did the farming interest of the
State become involved? By paying in addition
to the regular six per cent. interest, a bonus to
their commission merchant to accept for them.
He professionally knew something of this. A
farmer, he did not care what his means of payment
were, if he went to the city of Baltimore,
on country paper, he could not draw a dollar,
not even by a judgment or mortgage of his farm.
There might be exceptions, but rare ones in- |
