it may, after a careful consideration of the subject,
be, I think, safely stated that at every period of
banking excess it took the lead; that in 1817 and
1818, in 1823, in 1831, and in 1834 its vast expansions,
followed by distressing contractions, led to those
of the State institutions. It swelled and maddened
the tides of the banking system, but seldom allayed
or safely directed them. At a few periods only
was a salutary control exercised, but an eager desire,
on the contrary, exhibited for profit in the first
place; and if afterwards its measures were severe
toward other institutions, it was because its own
safety compelled it to adopt them. It did not
differ from them in principle or in form; its measures
emanated from the same spirit of gain; it felt the
same temptation to overissues; it suffered from and
was totally unable to avert those inevitable laws of
trade by which it was itself affected equally with
them; and at least on one occasion, at an early day,
it was saved only by extraordinary exertions from the
same fate that attended the weakest institution it
professed to supervise. In 1837 it failed equally
with others in redeeming its notes (though the two
years allowed by its charter for that purpose had not
expired), a large amount of which remains to the present
time outstanding. It is true that, having so
vast a capital and strengthened by the use of all
the revenues of the Government, it possessed more power;
but while it was itself by that circumstance freed
from the control which all banks require, its paramount
object and inducement were left the same—to
make the most for its stockholders, not to regulate
the currency of the country. Nor has it, as far
as we are advised, been found to be greatly otherwise
elsewhere. The national character given to the
Bank of England has not prevented excessive fluctuations
in their currency, and it proved unable to keep off
a suspension of specie payments, which lasted for
nearly a quarter of a century. And why should
we expect it to be otherwise? A national institution,
though deriving its charter from a different source
than the State banks, is yet constituted upon the same
principles, is conducted by men equally exposed to
temptation, and is liable to the same disasters, with
the additional disadvantage that its magnitude occasions
an extent of confusion and distress which the mismanagement
of smaller institutions could not produce. It
can scarcely be doubted that the recent suspension
of the United States Bank of Pennsylvania, of which
the effects are felt not in that State alone, but
over half the Union, had its origin in a course of
business commenced while it was a national institution,
and there is no good reason for supposing that the
same consequences would not have followed had it still
derived its powers from the General Government.
It is in vain, when the influences and impulses are
the same, to look for a difference in conduct or results.
By such creations we do, therefore, but increase the