Click image to open full size in new tab
Article Text
POLITICS.
(From the Pennsylounian)
MR. BIDDLE'S LEITER-[No 1.]
I propose briefly to examine Mr. Biddle's reasons, why, in his opinion, specie payments ought not to be resumed. I shall not enter into the question, how far it is possible that his opinions may be biassed by political feeling, or by the interest of himself and the other stockholders of the bank, as contra distinguished from those of the people at large. I will take up his positions, and without resort to personalities, calmly examine them.
The first observation which I shall notice, is the following: "The suspension is wholly conventional between the banks and the community, arising from their mutual conviction, that it is for their mutual benefit."
Let us take it for granted that this is a correct statement, so far as it relates to the original act of suspension-that the people at that time approved of the act; then this question will immediately arise-do the people desire the continuance of the suspension? If not, then upon Mr. Biddle's own position, the banks are bound to resuine. Now, what evidence have we of the people's opinions on the subject? We have the fact, that the House of Representatives, chosen at the last election, contains a majority elected as the avowed friends of a prompt resumption; that that House has passed a bill intended to produce a prompt resumption, and that those bank directors who do not wish to resume, rely upon the votes of Senators chosen years ago, to defeat the apparent will of the people. I suppose it will not be pretended that any other "community" than that which chartered our banks, viz: the people of Pennsylvania, is to determine when those banks should resume-not that Mississippi, Mexico or France is to settle the question for us, as to what our institutions shall do. Now, if Mr Biddle doubts that the present House of Representatives correctly represents the people, let him and those directors who agree with him, propose the submission of the question of immediate resumption to a vote of the people, to be taken in May next Then he will know what the community desire. I fully believe that the vote would be two to one in favor of resumption.
Again, Mr Biddle says: "The inquiry whether the banks are ready to resume, is only another form of asking whether the people are ready to pay their debts to the banks" By the "people," I presume he means the debtors of the banks. These constitute not one fiftieth part of the people. For every person that is indebted to the banks, there are thirty persons to whom the banks are indebted: they are indebted to every individual who holds one of their notes. Now, the doctrine of Mr. Biddle, when practically applied, amounts to this: a bank is not to pay thirty persons to whom it is indebted, until one person who owes the bank, is "ready" to pay the bank. If he does not choose to make ready to pay, then the bank is not to compel him, and it is to refuse to pay the thirty, whose property it has got and loaned to the one, receiving interest itself, but paying no interest to its creditors. How does this tally with the doctrine of the obligation of contracts? If the banks never pay until those who owe them are ready to pay, then they will never pay at all, for those who have borrowed of them will certainly prefer never to pay--they will never become ready, if it be left to them to fix the time.
If then, the position be correct, that the banks cannot pay without collecting what is due to them, that is no justification of a delay to collect and pay as fast as possible. It is no justification of retaining specie in their vaults, which their creditors desire; it is no justification of their failing to curtail their discounts, if such curtailment be necessary to enable them to meet their engagements.
Waiving, however, the question of morality, and taking it for granted that the fact that the debtors of a bank are not "ready" to pay, is a justfication of the bank in not making them pay for the purpose of paying its own debts; still I dissent from the main question of fact on which this excuse is founded. I do most unequivocally deny that it is necessary for the banks to collect their debts, or in other words, reduce the total amount of their loans in order to resume specie payments The banks are established for the purpose of loaning capital and paying specie for their own engagements, and that it is necessary to reduce the loans if specie be paid, is a point which has not been established, and I think, cannot be. The banks, by their own statements, have a much larger amount of specie in proportion to their liabilities, than they had during the two years preceding the suspension, and larger than they have customarily had in former times Why then is curtailment necessary in order to resumption? It is utterly impossible to show any reasonable ground to believe that the present circulation of the banks will be diminished, if specie be paid. If it be not diminished, then the banks by resuming could not only continue their present loans, but they night with perfect safety increase them by loaning one-third of the specie now in their vaults.
If it be fact that the community would refuse to circulate bank notes when they could obtain specie for them, then it cannot be fact that the community approve of the continued suspension. Thus the position that the banks must curtail if they resume, is contradicted by the position that the people do not wish them to pay their notes.
If there were a mere possibility, or remote probability that the people would act contrary to all former usage, still that mere possibility is no justification of the continued suspension. It is the duty of the banks to try the experiment; it is their duty to presume that the people will act as heretofore; that the customary quantity of specie will sustain the customary circulation. If they should afterwards find that the laws of trade have changed, then it will be time enough to adopt a new system for themselves.
A
The United States' Gazette of yesterday contained a letter without signature, purporting to have been adopted at the meeting of the Bank Committees of this city, on the 4th inst. It is addressed to the President of the Bank Convention, which is about to meet in New York, and states that "1" have been requested to give the reasons of the Philadelphia banks for not being represented in that body, which "1" accordingly does, repeating the old assertion that the interference of Congress is necessary, &c. Who "1" is, does not appear.
(From the U S. Gazette)
BANK CORRESPONDENCE.
We publish below a letter addressed to the President of the New York Bank Convention to be held to-morrow. It was transmitted by the Chairman of the Committees for the banks of this city and districts, by their direction, to explain the reasons of the absence of our delegates.
PHILADELPHIA, April 4, 1838.
Sir-At a meeting held this day, of committees from all the banks of the city and Liberties of Philadelphia, a notice was received from you of the adjourned meeting of the Convention of Banks, to be held at N. York on the 11th of this month. The banks of Philadelphia having declined to send delegates to that adjourned meeting, I have been instructed to apprise you of their determination, and, as a just mark of respect to the Convention, as well as to yourself, personally, to state the reasons of their absence. This duty I hasten to perform.
On the 19th of August. 1837, an invitation was given to the banks of Philadelphia, on behalf of the banks of the city of New York, to meet in Convention at the
