The resolutions from the Senate, upon the subject of the deposites of public money in the Banks, coming up for consideration—2

Mr. CALHOUN said he had been represented by others as being opposed to the State Bank. He was not so. He thought the public money ought to be deposited in the Banks of this State, while they continue to be deposited in Banks. He wanted to see the resolutions put in such a shape as that he could vote for them.

He did not wish unjust censure cast any where, and he thought the resolutions in their present shape, did so upon the President of the United States. A slight amendment would make the resolutions acceptable to him.

Mr. WILLIAMS said it was immaterial where the fault lie. Whether in the Executive of the United States, in Congress, or the Banks. The fact was, the Government is depositing the public money in Banks out of the State, and he thought it ought to be remedied. The State has chartered Banks, whose currency circulates among us. One of our Banks has the privilege to issue small bills, but the deposite act excludes such Banks. He asked whether that law was defensible? The only inquiry ought to be whether the Banks are good, and Congress acted improperly when they undertook to force the Legislatures of the States to alter their legislation upon the subject.3

Mr. W. said that the Secretary of the Treasury had recently selected 16 Banks as depositories which were situated similar to our own. He did not know that these Banks had issued small bills, but they had not commenced specie payments at the last dates. These very Banks had $900,000 on deposite from 1837, which they had not paid. Mr. W. then read from the report of the Secretary of the Treasury to show the number of Banks which were then employed as depositories. The Secretary stated that it was still the duty of the Department to select Bank depositories, where they were not excluded by the deposite act.4

The Secretary had evidently from his report selected Banks as depositors which were situated similarly with our own. Mr. W. stated that he had learned from good authority that Mr. Biddle’s Bank had been selected as a special depository, and that he had recently made $10,000 by the operation. Mr. W. thought it was time we had done truckling to the Administration. Our own Banks might as well have made this $10,000 as Mr. Biddle.

Mr. SMITH, of Wabash, asked Mr. Williams to name the sixteen Banks which had been selected. Mr. S. stated it was well known that he had always been in favor of our own Banks and of their having the deposites. Our own branch Bank at Quincy had been lately made a special depository as he was informed. Mr. Smith said he was not satisfied with the remarks of the gentleman from Adams. If it was true that the 16 Banks he had named were selected, and if it was true also that those Banks were similarly situated to our own, he should certainly vote for the original resolutions.

Mr. WILLIAMS named the Banks.

Mr. CLOUD offered an amendment to strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the following:

That we consider it but just and right while the General Government continues to make deposites with State Banks that the Banks in the States in which the revenue is collected should be employed as such depositories where such Banks do not render themselves incapable of becoming deposite Banks under the acts of Congress regulating the deposites of public moneys.

Resolved, That as citizens of Illinois, and Representatives of the people thereof, we view with regret the deposite of public money collected from our own citizens in our own State, in the Bank of Missouri, to the detriment of the citizens and Banks of our own State.

Resolved, That if the State Bank of Illinois and the Bank of Illinois at Shawneetown shall comply with the regulations enacted by Congress in reference to deposites, and shall properly authenticate the fact to the proper department, we as the Representatives of the people of the State of Illinois respectfully yet earnestly ask and claim as an act of justice the deposite of the revenue collected in this State to be made in the banks thereof so long as the Government shall continue to deposite her funds with the State Banks, and so long as the Banks of the State conform to the acts of Congress on the subject of deposites.

Resolved, That if the General Government shall neglect and refuse to deposite the money collected in this State in the Banks thereof after evidence is laid before the proper department that the Banks of Illinois have removed all disabilities on their part to become deposite Banks, the people of the State will have just grounds to complain of the policy of the General Government as unfair and partial.

Resolved, That if proper evidence be given to our Senators and Representatives that the Banks of Illinois come within the purview of the deposite act, that our Senators be instructed and our Reprhsentatives requested to use their influence to procure the doposites for the Banks of this State.

Resolved, That the Governor be requested to forward a copy of the foregoing resolutions to each of our Senators and Representatives in Congress.

Mr. Webb, of White called for a division of the question.

Mr. WILLIAMS hoped the amendment would not prevail.

Mr. HAPPY said the gentleman from Adams had not read the whole deposite law He then read the entire law. Much pains had been taken to show that this was no party question, yet when we wish to strike out the party matter in the resolutions, the gentlemen of the Whig party refuse to give us a chance to do so.5 Mr. Happy then read from the Sangamo Journal, the organ of the Whig party. That paper says that the resolutions are instructions to our Senators to vote against the Sub. Treasury system.6 It does not say any thing about depositories. What do gentlemen say to this? Those gentlemen who on this floor, are endeavoring to soft soap the members by saying there is no party. Mr. Happy said the gentlemen from Adams had proved that there were only four general depositories in the United States, and the Bank of Missouri happened to be one of them.7 Ought we to get in a great pet with the General Government for not giving us a share of the deposites? There were 16 special depositories, and Mr. H would ask what would be our share? Two million and a little upwards was the whole amount on deposite in banks, including the Nick Biddle bank, which had been spoken of. Mr. H. could not understand that any other object was intended than an attack upon the Administration. Their organ at Springfield had asserted in advance what they were. The editor had been too fast, however, for his friends here. The editor said they were party resolutions, and more, that they would pass this House!8 Probably some of his friends here had told him so—those very friends who softly told us here there is no party! Mr. Speaker, I detest this political hypocrisy! Gentlemen tell their organ at Springfield that these resolutions are equivalent to instructions to our Senators against the Sub-treasury bill; but here they sing a totally different tune! Here they say there are no instructions intended!

Mr. H. said he had confidence in one of the banks—the Shawneetown bank; but he had heard rumors of the State bank which, if upon investigation, should turn out to be true, he should have no confidence in that bank. He had heard that she had made $500,000 off the State—that she was also engaged in the lead trade.

Mr. BAKER said that the gentleman from Morgan (Mr. Happy) always introduces the bank into every subject he discusses. But he should let that pass. The gentleman had also said that the Globe was the party organ. Mr. B. would quote from that organ in 1832. It then condemned the sub-treasury bill, as bringing the money of the nation one step nearer the President, &c[etc]. The gentleman from Morgan had never quoted this from the Globe. Mr. B. said he did not acknowledge the sentiments of some stray writer in the Sangamon Journal as his sentiments. He did not think the resolutions were party resolutions.9

Mr. B. then referred to the report of the Secretary of the Treasury. It appeared that special depositories had been established. He thought the argument of the gentleman from Adams was unanswerable. These special depositories were general depositories at last. The money is placed to the special credit of the treasurer, and the banks have the use of the money until the treasurer wants it. He thought our own banks ought to be placed in the same condition. Mr. B. contended that it was not the amount of the deposites which should determine this question. Whether the deposites were much or little, the principle is the same. If it is right to deposite at all in banks, and he thought it was, the amount of the deposites is nothing.

Mr. B. said the bank which had lately been selected in Mobile owed the government from 1837. The Bank of Missouri had only gone into operation lately. She had always paid specie, he supposed, but the effect of keeping her a depository, and not our own, was to cripple our banks and the community in which they were. Mr. B. asked whether it was wise legislation in Congress to exclude our banks. That the legislation was partial, no one could doubt. Its effect was to draw our substance from us never to return. This was the manner in which we were treated by a government which severed the order of Providence, who returns the dews of Heaven for all he takes away. He, Mr. B., said the resolution was not of a party nature. If the government had acted partially, as he thought it had, we ought to speak out without regard to party, and have speedy and active redress.

Mr. WALKER, of Vermillion, contended that what he wanted was to express the opinion that while the government used banks, she ought to use ours. But the resolutions, as they now read, would not accomplish the purpose. The gentleman from Sangamo had stated yesterday that the General Government was no longer the protector of the State, because she did not deposite her money in banks. Mr. Walker did not expect to hear such doctrines advanced on this floor. The gentleman seemed to think that we must hurl our defiances in the teeth of the General Government, as on some foreign enemy. He seemed to scout the idea that the Legislature ought to memorialize Congress. He called it a humiliation. Mr. Walker thought such doctrines as these worse than nullification.10

Gentlemen condemn the Secretary of the Treasury for violating the deposite law in selecting some sixteen deposite banks, and at the same time condemn him for not violating the law still further by selecting our own banks against the law. This was inconsistent. Mr Walker then referred to the opinion of the press of these resolutions. The Whig papers had broke party grounds upon them, they called them a death-blow to the sub-treasury, and amounting to an instruction to our Senators to vote against that bill. It was in vain for gentlemen to say there was no party intended. They had voted down all amendments, they had gone against all investigation. They had opposed all modification, by which the resolutions could be put in such a form as to carry both parties generally. This course falsifies the declarations of gentlemen that there is no party.

Mr BAKER replied, denying that he was in any sense a nullifier. Mr Calhoun, he believed, the great nullifier, was now acting with the party to which the gentleman from Vermilion belongs.

Mr. HAPPY said he hoped he would not be asked to throw off his party trammels, by gentlemen who stick so tight to their own. Mr H. asked the gentleman from Sangamo what party it was that voted in favor of the sub-treasury in 1832? Was it not his own party?

Mr BAKER vindicated his party for their course then, by saying that the ban of the Administration was then upon them.

Mr ENGLISH said he should vote for the amendment, he believed it was better calculated to attain the object desired by every gentleman in this House; he was opposed to the Senate Resolutions, not that he was unfriendly to the object proposed to be accomplished by them, but that they accused in strong language the Administration with wanton partiality towards our banks. Mr E said he would go as far as any other gentleman to promote the interest of our own banks, but that he was unwilling to vote to censure the General Government until he was convinced that such partiality had been shown by the government. If gentlemen believed that such partiality existed, why did they oppose the resolution offered by the gentleman from Sangamo, Mr Calhoun, calling for the correspondence between the Secretary of the Treasury and the banks of Illinois; are gentlemen afraid to have the facts come to the light?11 Mr E. was friendly to our own institutions, and was anxious to see them made the depositories of the public monies collected in our own State while the Government continues to make deposites in banks, which he hoped might not long be the case. Mr E., understood the gentleman from Sangamo (Mr Baker) to say, that any gentleman that would not vote for the resolutions as they now are, must be so tramelled by party shackles as to be unworthy to represent a free and intelligent people, that there is nothing in these resolutions of a party character, that gentlemen ought to soar above party considerations on this question. Mr E. replied to this part of the argument by saying, he should vote for the amendment, and that if the resolutions were not amended, he should vote against them notwithstanding the declaration just made by the Hon. gentleman from Sangamo. Mr E. said, he was willing to admit that he was a party man to a certain extent, and that he did not know a gentleman on this floor that was not. Mr. E. said, he thought the cry of no party, came with rather an ill grace from that quarter. Mr E. said if he was permitted to guess, he should guess that no gentleman on this floor would hollow louder and throw his hat higher at a party victory, than the Hon. gentleman from Sangamo. Mr E. hoped the amendments might be agreed to.

Mr LINCOLN said, he would be willing that the word partiality should be stricken out if he thought it was not true. The Legislature would be more respected by the Government if it used plain language, whenever that language is true. Mr L. then summed up the arguments which had passed, and contended that the position was fully made out that the Government had been partial. He was willing to take the gentleman from Vermilion by the hand. He says that by our course we strike our own party friends. Well, we are willing to go it. Let him do the same with his party friends. Gentlemen insist that they cannot pass on these resolutions without investigation. He had heard similar arguments often made to put off trial in court.

Mr WILLIAMS pointed out the distinction between the resolutions and the substitute.12 He believed that the resolutions were true, and he hoped gentlemen would come up and vote on them. He hoped no newspaper opinions would be taken as authority. Let gentlemen judge for themselves whether they instruct our Senators against a sub-treasury or not, and vote accordingly. Mr W. declared that from the documents in his hand, it was evident that Mr Woodbury considered it in his power to employ banks.

Mr W. said, that he and his friends were willing to modify the resolutions in a manner which he thought would be acceptable.

Mr MURPHY hoped the substitute would be withdrawn, as he desired to have the resolutions modified as had been suggested.

Mr CLOUD did not think he could withdraw it. He could not vote for the seventh resolution, which instructed our Senators to use their influence to deposite the money in the State.13

Mr WALKER, of Vermilion said, he thought as the question would be first taken upon the first amendment, a compromise might be made upon the language of the seventh resolution.14

Mr MURPHY, of Perry, made some remarks, which were lost by the reporter.

The question was then taken on striking out all after the word resolved in the first resolution, and decided by yeas and nays as follows:

Yeas—Messrs.[Messieurs] Alexander, Allen of Franklin, Allen of Greene, Bainbridge, Brown, Calhoun, Carpenter, Churchill, Cloud, Compher, Copland, Crain, Daley, Edmonson, English, Fisk, Flood, Foster, French, Gouge, Green of Clay, Green of Greene, Hankins, Happy, Harris, Houston, Kercheval, Logan, McWilliams, Maus, Moore, Murphy of Cook, Naper, Pace, Robinson, Roman, Robert Smith, Thomas of St. Clair, Walker of Vermilion, Webb of Alexander, Wood, Zimmerman, and Mr. Speaker—43.

Nays—Messrs. Aldrich, Archer, Baker, Craig, Cunningham, Dawson, Dubois, Dunn, Edwards, Elkin, Elliott, Emmerson, Ficklin, Gilham, Hardin, Henderson, Henry, Holmes, Hull, Johnson, Jones, Kent, Kerr, Lincoln, Lyons, McCormack, McMillan, McCutchen, Menard, Morgan, Murphy of Perry, Murphy of Vermilion, Otwell, Phillips, Rawalt, Read, Roberts, Smith of Wabash, George Smith, Stapp, Thomas of McLean, Thornton, Walker of Fulton, Webb of White, and Williams—45.15

The question was then taken on striking out the word partiality and inserting policy, and decided in the affirmative—yeas 54, nays 34.16

Mr. CALHOUN moved to strike out the fifth resolution.

Mr. THORNTON asked whether the resolutions would receive the support of the gentleman from Sangamon if thus amended.

Mr. CALHOUN said they would.

The question being taken, the fifth resolution was stricken out.17

Mr. LINCOLN moved to lay the resolutions and amendments on the table until the 4th of July, which was decided in the affirmative, by yeas and nays as follows:

Yeas—Messrs. Alexander, Allen of Franklin, Allen of Greene, Bainbridge, Brown, Carpenter, Churchill, Cloud, Compher, Copland, Crain, Daley, Dubois, English, Ficklin, Fisk, Flood, Foster, French, Gouge, Green of Clay, Green of Greene, Hankins, Happy, Harris, Henderson, Holmes, Houston, Kercheval, Lincoln, Logan, Lyons, McCormick, McMillan, McWilliams, Moore, Murphy of Cook, Naper, Read, Robinson, Roman, George Smith, Walker of Vermilion, Webb of Alexander, Zimmerman, and Mr. Speaker—46.

Nays—Messrs. Aldrich, Archer, Baker, Craig, Cunningham, Dawson, Dunn, Edmonson, Edwards, Elkin, Elliott, Emmerson, Gilham, Hardin, Henry, Hull, Johnson, Jones, Kent, Kerr, McCutchen, Maus, Menard, Morgan, Murphy of Perry, Murphy of Vermilion, Otwell, Pace, Philips, Rawalt, Roberts, Smith of Wabash, Robert Smith, Stapp, Thomas of McLoan, Thomas of St. Clair, Thornton, Walker of Fulton, Webb of White, Williams, and Wood—42.

The House then adjourned.