tax, or did we ever tax, the foreign holders of our public debt?  Does Pennsylvania, New York, or Ohio tax the foreign holders of stock in the loans contracted by either of these States?  Certainly not.  Sir, I must confess I had little expected to see, on such an occasion as the present, a labored and repeated attempt to produce an impression on the public opinion unfavorable to the bank, from the circumstance that foreigners are among its stockholders.  I have no hesitation in saying, that I deem such a train of remark as the message contains on this point, coming from the President of the United States, to be injurious to the credit and character of the country abroad; because it manifests a jealousy, a lurking disposition not to respect the property, of foreigners invited hither by our own laws.  And, Sir, what is its tendency but to excite this jealousy, and create groundless prejudices?

From the commencement of the government, it has been thought desirable to invite, rather than to repel, the introduction of foreign capital.  Our stocks have all been open to foreign subscriptions; and the State banks, in like manner, are free to foreign ownership.  Whatever State has created a debt has been willing that foreigners should become purchasers, and desirous of it.  How long is it, Sir, since Congress itself passed a law vesting new powers in the President of the United States over the cities in this District, for the very purpose of increasing their credit abroad, the better to enable them to borrow money to pay their subscriptions to the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal?  It is easy to say that there is danger to liberty, danger to independence, in a bank open to foreign stockholders, because it is easy to say any thing.  But neither reason nor experience proves any such danger.  The foreign stockholder cannot be a director.  He has no voice even in the choice of directors.  His money is placed entirely in the management of the directors appointed by the President and Senate and by the American stockholders.  So far as there is dependence or influence either way, it is to the disadvantage of the foreign stockholder.  He has parted with the control over his own property, instead of exercising control over the property or over the actions of others.  And, Sir, let it now be added, in further answer to this class of objections, that experience has abundantly confuted them all.  This government has existed forty-three years, and has maintained, in full being and operation, a bank, such as is now proposed to be renewed, for thirty-six years out of the forty-three.  We have never for a moment had a bank not subject to every one of these objections.  Always, foreigners might be stockholders; always, foreign stock has been exempt from State taxation, as much as at present; always, the same power and privileges; always, all that which is now called a “monopoly,” a “gratuity,” a “present,” have been possessed by the bank.  And yet there has been found no danger to