Report of Legislative Debate on the State Bank of Illinois, 11 January 1837
REMARKS OF MR. LINCOLN,
In the House of Representatives, upon the resolution offered by Mr. Linder, to institute an enquiry into the management of the affairs of the State Bank.1
Mr. Chairman: Lest I should fall into the too common error, of being mistaken in regard to which side I design to be upon, I shall make it my first care to remove all doubt on that point, by declaring that I am opposed to the resolution under consideration, in toto. Before I proceed to the body of the subject, I will further remark, that it is not without a considerable degree of apprehension, that I venture to cross the track of the gentleman from Coles (Mr. Linder.) Indeed, I do not believe I could muster a sufficiency of courage to come in contact with that gentleman, were it not for the fact, that he, some days since, most graciously condescended to assure us that he would never be found wasting ammunition on small game. On the same fortunate occasion, he further gave us to understand, that he regarded himself as being decidedly the superior of our common friend from Randolph (Mr. Shields); and feeling, as I really do, that I, to say the most of myself, am nothing more than the peer of our friend from Randolph, I shall regard the gentleman from Coles as decidedly my superior also, and consequently, in the course of what I shall have to say, whenever I shall have occasion to allude to that gentleman, I shall endeavor to adopt that kind of court language which I understand to be due to decided superiority. In one faculty, at least, there can be no dispute of the gentleman’s superiority over me, and most other men; and that is, the faculty of entangling a subject, so that neither himself, or any other man, can find head or tail to it. Here he has introduced a resolution, embracing ninety-nine printed lines across common writing paper, and yet more than one half of his opening speech has been made upon subjects about which there is not one word said in his resolution.
Though his resolution embraces nothing in regard to the constitutionality of the Bank, much of what he has said has been with a view to make the impression that it was unconstitutional in its inception. Now, although I am satisfied that an ample field may be found within the pale of the resolution, at least for small game, yet as the gentleman has travelled out of it, I feel that I may, with all due humility, venture to follow him. The gentleman has discovered that some gentleman at Washington city has been upon the very eve of deciding our Bank unconstitutional, and that he would probably have completed his very authentic decision, had not some one of the Bank officers placed his hand upon his mouth, and begged him to withhold it. The fact that the individuals composing our Supreme Court have, in an official capacity, decided in favor of the constitutionality of the Bank, would, in my mind, seem a sufficient answer to this. It is a fact known to all, that the members of the Supreme Court, together with the Governor, form a Council of Revision, and that this Council approved this Bank Charter. I ask, then, if the extra-judicial decision—not quite, but only almost made, by the gentleman at Washington, before whom, by the way, the question of the constitutionality of our Bank never has, nor never can come—is to be taken as paramount to a decision officially made by that tribunal, by which and which alone, the constitutionality of the Bank can ever be settled? But aside from this view of the subject, I would ask, if the committee which this resolution proposes to appoint, are to examine into the constitutionality of the Bank? Are they to be clothed with power to send for persons and papers, for this object? And after they have found the Bank to be unconstitutional, and decided it so, how are they to enforce their decision? What will their decision amount to? They cannot compel the Bank to cease operations, or to change the course of its operations. What good, then, can their labors result in? Certainly none.
The gentleman asks, if we, without an examination, shall, by giving the State deposites to the bank, and by taking the stock reserved for the State, legalize its former misconduct? Now I do not pretend to possess sufficient legal knowledge to decide, whether a legislative enactment, proposing to, and accepting from, the Bank, certain terms, would have the effect to legalize or wipe out its former errors, or not; but I can assure the gentleman, if such should be the effect, he has already got behind the settlement of accounts; for it is well known to all, that the Legislature, at its last session, passed a supplemental Bank charter, which the Bank has since accepted, and which, according to his doctrine, has legalized all the alleged violations of its original charter in the distribution of its stock.
I now proceed to the resolution. By examination it will be found that the first thirty-three lines, being precisely one third of the whole, relate exclusively to the distribution of the stock by the commissioners [appointed by the State.] Now, [sir,] it is clear that no [question can] arise on this portion of the resolution, except a question between capitalists in regard to the ownership of stock. Some gentlemen have the stock in their hands, while others, who have more money than they know what to do with, waut it; and this, and this alone, is the question, to settle which we are called on to squander thousands of the people’s money. What interest, let me ask, have the people in the settlement of this question? What difference is it to to them whether the stock is owned by Judge Smith, or Sam. Wiggins? If any gentleman be entitled to stock in the Bank, which he is kept out of possession of by others, let him assert his right in the Supreme Court, and let him or his antagonist, whichever may be found in the wrong, pay the costs of suit. It is an old maxim and a very sound one, that he that dances should always pay the fiddler. Now, sir, in the present case, if any gentlemen, whose money is a burden to them, choose to lead off a dance, I am decidedly opposed to the people’s money being used to pay the fiddler. No one can doubt that the examination proposed by this resolution, must cost the State some ten or twelve thousand dollars; and all this to settle a question in which the people have no interest, and about which they care nothing. These capitalists generally act harmoniously and in concert, to fleece the people, and now, that they have got into a quarrel with themselves, we are called upon to appropriate the people’s money to settle the quarrel.2
I leave this part of the resolution, and proceed to the remainder. It will be found that no charge in the remaining part of the resolution, if true, amounts to the violation of the Bank charter, except one, which I will notice in due time. It might seem quite sufficient, to say no more upon any of these charges or insinuations, than enough to show they they are not violations of the charter; yet, as that are ingeniously framed and handled, with a view to deceive and mislead, I will notice in their order, all the most prominent of them. The first of these, is in relation to a connexion between our Bank and several Banking institutions in other States. Admitting this connection to exist, I should like to see the gentleman from Coles, or any other gentleman, undertake to show that there is any harm in it.—What can there be in such a connexion, that the people of Illinois are willing to pay their money to get a peep into? By a reference to the tenth section of the Bank charter, any gentleman can see that the framers of the act contemplated the holding of stock in the iustitutions of other corporations. Why, then, is it, when neither law nor justice forbids it, that we are asked to spend our time and money, in inquiring into its truth?
The next charge, in the order of time, is, that [some] officer, director, clerk or servant of the Bank, [has] been required to take an oath of secrecy in rela[tio]n to the affairs of said Bank. Now, I do not [know] whether this be true or false—neither do I be[lie]ve auy honest man cares. I know that the sev[en]th section of the charter expressly guarantees to [t]he Bank the right of making, under certain restrictions, such by-laws as it may think fit; and I further know that the requiring an oath of secsecy, would not transcend those restrictions. What, then, if the Bank has chosen to exercise this right? Who can it injure? Does not every merchant have his secret mark? and who is ever silly enough to complain of it? I presume if the Bank does require any such oath of secrecy, it is done through a motive of delicacy to those individuals who deal with it.—Why, sir, not many days since, one gentleman upon this floor, who, by the way I have no doubt is now ready to join this hue and cry against the Bank, indulged in a philippic against one of the Bank officers, because, as he said, he had divulged a secret. 3
Immediately following this last charge, there are several insinuations in the resolution, which are too silly to require any sort of notice, were it not for the fact, that they conclude by saying, “to the great injury of the people at large.” In answer to this I would say, that it is strange enough, that the people are suffering these “great injuries,” and yet are not sensible of it! Singular indeed that the people should be writhing under oppression and injury, and yet not one among them to be found, to raise the voice of complaint. If the Bank be inflicting injury upon the people, why is it, that not a single petition is presented to this body ou the subject? If the Bank really be a grievance, why is it, that no one of the real people is found to ask redress of it? The truth is, no such oppression exists. If it did, our [ta]ble would groan with memorials and petitions, and [we w]ould not be permitted to rest day or night, till [we had] put it down. The people know their rights; [and they] are never slow to assert and maintain [them, when th]ey are invaded. Let them call for an [investigation, an]d I shall ever stand ready to re[spond to the call]. But they have made no such call[. I make the asserti]on boldly, and without fear of con[tradiction, that no]man, who does not hold an office, [or does not aspire t]o one, has ever found any fault [of the Bank. It has] doubled the prices of the pro[ ducts of their farms, a]nd filled their pockets with a [ sound circulating med]ium, and they are all well [pleased with its operati]ons. No, Sir, it is the [politician who is the first to] sound the alarm, (which, [by the way, is a false on]e.) It is he, by these un[holy means, is endeavori]ng to blow up a storm that he may ride upon and direct. It is he, and he alone, that here proposes to spend thousands of the people’s public treasure, for no other advantage to them, than to make valueless in their pockets the reward of their industry. Mr. Chairman, this movement is exclusively the work of politicians; a set of men who have interests aside from the interests of the people, and who, to say the most of them, are, taken as a mass, at least one long step removed from honest men. I say this with the greater freedom, because, being a politician myself, none can regard it as personal. 4
Again, it is charged, or rather insinuated, that officers of the Bank have loaned money at usurious rates of interest. Suppose this to be true, are we to send a committee of this House to enquire into it? Suppose the committee should find it true can they redress the injured individuals? Assuredly not. If any individual had been injured in this way, is there not an ample remedy, to be found in the laws of the land? Does the gentleman from Coles know, that there is a statute standing in full force, making it highly penal, for and individual to loan money at a higher rate of interest than twelve per cent?5 If he does not he is too ignorant to be placed at the head of the committee which his resolution proposes: and if he does, his neglect to mention it, shows him to be too uncandid to merit the respect or confidence of any one.
But besides all this, if the Bank were struck from existence, could not the owners of the capital still loan it usuriously, as well as now? Whatever the Bank, or its officers, may have done, I know that usurious transactions were much more frequent and enormous, before the commencement of its operations, than they have ever been since.
The next insinuation is, that the Bank has refused specie payments. This, if true, is a violation of the charter. But there is not the least probability of its truth; because, if such had been the fact, the individual to whom payment was refused, would have had an interest in making it public, by suing for the damages to which the charter entitles him. Yet no such thing has been done; and the strong presumption is, that the insinuation is false and groundless.
From this to the end of the resolution, there is nothing that merits attention—I therefore drop the particular examination of it.
By a general view of the resolution, it will be seen that a principal object of the committee is, to examine into, and ferret out, a mass of corruption, supposed to have been committed by the commissioners who apportioned the stock of the Bank. I believe it is universally understood and acknowledged, that all men will ever act correctly, unless they have a motive to do otherwise. If this be true, we can only suppose that the commissioners acted corruptly, by also supposing that they were bribed to do so. Taking this view of the subject, I would ask if the Bank is likely to find it more difficult to bribe the committee of seven, which we are about to appoint, than it may have found it to bribe the commissioners?
(Here Mr. Linder called to order. The Chair decided that Mr. Lincoln was not out of order. Mr. Linder appealed to the House;—but before the question was put, withdrew his appeal, saying, he preferred to let the gentleman go on; he thought he would break his own neck. Mr. Lincoln proceeded)—
Another gracious condescension. I acknowledge it with gratitude. I know I was not out of order; and I know every sensible man in the House knows it. I was not saying that the gentleman from Coles could not be bribed, nor, on the other hand, will I say he could not. In that particular, I leave him where I found him. I was only endeavoring to show that there was at least as great a probability of any seven members that could be selected from this House, being bribed to act corruptly, as there was, that the twenty-four commissioners had been so bribed. By reference to the ninth section of the Bank charter, it will be seen that those commissioners were John Tilson, Robert K. McLaughlin, Daniel Wann, A. G. S. Wight, John C. Riley, W. H. Davidson, Edward M. Wilson6, Edward L. Pierson, Robert R. Green, Ezra Baker, Aquilla Wren, John Taylor, Samuel C. Christy, Edmund Roberts, Benjamin Godfrey, Thomas Mather, A. M. Jenkins, W. Linn, W. S. Gilman, Charles Prentice, Richard I. Hamilton, A. H. Buckner, W. F. Thornton, and Edmund D. Taylor.
These are twenty-four of the most respectble men in the State. Probably no twenty-four men could be selected in the State, with whom the people are better acquainted, or in whose honor and integrity, they would more readily place confidence. And I now repeat, that there is less probability that those men have been bribed and corrupted, than that any seven men, or rather any six men, that could be selected from the members of this House, might be so bribed and corrupted; even though they were headed and led on by “decided superiority” himself.
In all seriousness, I ask every reasonable man, if an issue be joined by these twenty-four commissioners, on the one part, and any other seven men, on the other part, and the whole depend upon the honor and integrity of the contending parties, to which party would the greatest degree of credit be due? Again: Another consideration is, that we have no right to make the examination. What I shall say upon this head, I design exclusively for the law-loving and law-abiding part of the House. To those who claim omnipotence for the Legislature, and who in the plentitude of their assumed powers, are disposed to disregard the Constitution, law, good faith, moral right, and every thing else, I have not a word to say. But to the law-abiding part I say, examine the Bank charter, go examine the Constitution; go examine the acts that the General Assembly of this State has passed, and you will find just as much authority given in each and every of them, to compel the Bank to bring its coffers to this hall, and to pour their contents upon this floor, as to compel it to submit to this examination which this resolution proposes. Why, sir, the gentleman from Coles, the mover of this resolution, very lately denied on this floor, that the Legislature had any right to repeal, or otherwise meddle with its own acts, when those acts were made in the nature of contracts, and had been accepted and acted on by other parties. Now I ask, if this resolution does not propose, for this House alone, to do, what he, but the other day, denied the right the whole Legislature to do? He must either abandon the position he then took, or he must now vote against his own resolution. It is no difference to me, and I presume but little to any one else, which he does.
I am by no means the special advocate of the Bank. I have long thought that it would be well for it to report its condition to the General Assembly, and that cases might occur, when it might be proper to make an examination of its affairs by a committee. Accordingly, during the last session, while a bill supplemental to the Bank charter, was pending before the House, I offered an amendment to the same, in these words: “The said corporation shall, at the next session of the General Assembly, and at each subsequent General Session, during the existence of its charter, report to the same the amount of debts due from said corporation; the amount of debts due to the same; the amount of specie in its vaults, and an account of all lands then owned by the same, and the amount for which such lands have been taken; and moreover, if said corporation shall at any time neglect or refuse to submit its books, papers, and all and every thing necessary for a full and fair examination of its affairs, to any person or persons appointed by the General Assembly, for the purpose of making such examination, the said corporation shall forfeit its charter.”
This amendment was negatived by a vote of 34 to 15. Eleven of the 34 who voted against it, are now members of this House; and though it would be out of order to call their names, I hope they will all recollect themselves, aud not vote for this examination to be made without authority, inasmuch as they refused to reserve the authority when it was in their power to do so.
I have said that cases might occur, when an examination might be proper; but I do not believe any such case has now occurred; and if it has, I should still be opposed to making an examination without legal authority. I am opposed to encouraging that lawless and mobocratic spirit, whether in relation to the bank or any thing else, which is already abroad in the land; and it spreading with rapid and fearful impetuosity, to the ultimate overthrow of every institution, or even moral principle, in which persons and property have hitherto found security.
But supposing we had the authority, I would ask what good can result from the examination? Can we declare the Bank unconstitutional, and compel it to cease operations?—Can we compel it to desist from the abuses of its power, provided we find such abuses to exist? Can we repair the injuries which it may have done to individuals? Most certainly we can do none of these things. Why then shall we spend the public money in such employment? O, say the examiners, we can injure the credit of the Bank, if nothing else.—Please tell me, gentlemen, who will suffer most by that? You cannot injure, to any extent, the Stockholders. They are men of wealth—of large capital: and consequently, beyond the power of fortune, or even the shafts of malice. But by injuring the credit of the Bank, you will depreciate the value of its paper in the hands of the honest and unsuspecting farmer and mechanic, and that is all you can do. But suppose you could effect your whole purpose; suppose you could wipe the Bank from existence, which is the grand ultimatum of the project, what would be the consequence? Why, sir, we should spend several thousand dollars of the public treasure in the operation, annihilate the currency of the State; render valueless in the hands of our people that reward of their former labors; and finally, be once more under the comfortable obligation of paying the Wiggins’ loan, principal and interest.7
1On January 7, 1837, Usher F. Linder proposed for adoption a resolution calling for the appointment of a select committee of seven persons to investigate the State Bank of Illinois. The House tabled the resolution and ordered 150 copies printed by a vote of 61 yeas to 14 nays, with Abraham Lincoln voting yea. On January 11, the House agreed to allow Linder to move to take up the resolution by a vote of 55 yeas to 21 nays, with Lincoln voting nay. The House then agreed to take up the resolution by a vote of 57 yeas to 24 nays, with Lincoln voting nay. Lincoln’s remarks came in the midst of the ensuing debate.
Illinois House Journal. 1836. 10th G. A., 1st sess., 195-99, 235-36.
2The original source text for this paragraph is damaged (a section of the column is torn away). The text within the supplied elements comes from the transcription in Roy P. Basler, The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1953), I:63.
3The original source text for this paragraph is damaged (a section of the column is torn away). The text within the supplied elements comes from the transcription in Basler, Collected Works, I:64-65.
4The original source text for this paragraph is damaged (a section of the column is torn away). The text within the supplied elements comes from the transcription in Basler, Collected Works, I:65.
“An Act to Regulate the Interest of Money,” 28 February 1833, Revised Laws of Illinois (1833), 348-50.
6This may be Edward M. Wilson of Vermilion County, Illinois.
7In 1831, the General Assembly had authorized borrowing $100,000 from Samuel Wiggins to replenish the school fund, from which the legislature had borrowed to pay state expenses, and to redeem State Bank of Illinois bank notes, which the state had purchased at a heavy discount and which became due in 1831 at face value in specie.
After debate on the resolution, the House referred it to the Committee of the Whole. On January 18, the House discharged the Committee of the Whole from further consideration. Linder proposed to amend the resolution by striking out all after the word “Resolved” and inserting a substitute calling for a select committee of five to investigate the bank. John J. Hardin countered with his own substitute calling for the House and Senate finance committees to conduct the inquiry. Hardin later modified his substitute making it a joint select committee of three members of the House and two from the Senate. The House rejected Hardin’ substitute as modified by a vote of 39 yeas to 45 nays, with Lincoln voting yea. The House refused to refer the resolution and Linder’s proposed substitute to a select committee by a vote of 23 yeas to 60 nays, with Lincoln voting nay. The House rejected Lincoln’s motion to amend the proposed substitute by striking out the word “organization” by a vote of 34 yeas to 44 nays, with Lincoln voting yea. After several procedural votes, the House agreed to strike out the original resolution by a vote of 76 yeas to 10 nays, with Lincoln voting yea. The House agreed to insert Linder’s substitute by a vote of 66 yeas to 21 nays, with Lincoln voting nay. On January 19, the Senate adopted two resolutions, one that mirrored Hardin’s substitute as modified calling for a joint select committee to inquire into the condition and financial dealings of the State Bank, and the second calling for a joint select committee to inquire into the affairs of the Bank of Illinois. The House amended the resolution on the State Bank and adopted the resolution as amended by a vote of 70 yeas to 10 nays, with Lincoln voting nay. The House also adopted the second resolution by a vote of 44 yeas to 35 yeas, with Lincoln voting nay. On January 20, the Senate concurred in the House amendments. On February 18, the joint select committee appointed to investigate the State Bank issued its report.
Reg Ankrom, Stephen A. Douglas: The Political Apprenticeship, 1833-1843 (Jefferson, NC: McFarland, 2015), 79-80; Illinois House Journal. 1836. 10th G. A., 1st sess., 236-37, 247, 288-94, 295-97, 299-300, 303-306, 316, 616-23; Illinois Senate Journal. 1836. 10th G. A., 1st sess., 244-45, 252-54, 261.
Printed Document, 1 page(s), Sangamo Journal , (Springfield, IL) , 28 January 1837, 2:1-3