or according to commercial occurrences.  But if, by a judicious administration of its affairs, it had kept its stock always above par, what pretence would there be, nevertheless, for saying that such augmentation of its value was a “gratuity” from government?  The message proceeds to declare, that the present act proposes another donation, another gratuity, to the same men, of at least seven millions more.  It seems to me that this is an extraordinary statement, and an extraordinary style of argument, for such a subject and on such an occasion.  In the first place, the facts are all assumed; they are taken for true without evidence.  There are no proofs that any benefit to that amount will accrue to the stockholders, nor any experience to justify the expectation of it.  It rests on random estimates, or mere conjecture.  But suppose the continuance of the charter should prove beneficial to the stockholders; do they not pay for it?  They give twice as much for a charter of fifteen years, as was given before for one of twenty.  And if the proposed bonus, or premium, be not, in the President’s judgment, large enough, would he, nevertheless, on such a mere matter of opinion as that, negative the whole bill?  May not Congress be trusted to decide even on such a subject as the amount of the money premium to be received by government for a charter of this kind?

But, Sir, there is a larger and a much more just view of this subject.  The bill was not passed for the purpose of benefiting the present stockholders.  Their benefit, if any, is incidental and collateral.  Nor was it passed on any idea that they had a right to a renewed charter, although the message argues against such right, as if it had been somewhere set up and asserted.  No such right has been asserted by anybody.  Congress passed the bill, not as a bounty or a favor to the present stockholders, nor to comply with any demand of right on their part; but to promote great public interests, for great public objects.  Every bank must have some stockholders, unless it be such a bank as the President has recommended, and in regard to which he seems not likely to find much concurrence of other men’s opinions; and if the stockholders, whoever they may be, conduct the affairs of the bank prudently, the expectation is always, of course, that they will make it profitable to themselves, as well as useful to the public.  If a bank charter is not to be granted, because, to some extent, it may be profitable to the stockholders, no charter can be granted.  The objection lies against all banks.

Sir, the object aimed at by such institutions is to connect the public safety and convenience with private interests.  It has been found by experience, that banks are safest under private management, and that government banks are among the most dangerous of all inventions.  Now, Sir, the whole drift of the message is to reverse the settled judgment of all the civilized world, and to set up government banks,