READ TO THE CABINET, ON THE 18th OF SEPTEMBER, 1833. Having carefully and anxiously considered all the facts and arguments which have been submitted to him, relative to a removal of the public deposites from the Bank of the United States, the president deems it his duty to communicate in this manner to his cabinet the final conclusions of his own mind, and the reasons on which they are founded, in order to put them in a durable form, and to prevent misconceptions. The president's convictions of the dangerous tendencies of the Bank of the United States, since signally illustrated by its own acts, were so overpowering when he entered upon the duties of chief magistrate, that he felt it his duty, notwithstanding the objections of the friends by whom he was surrounded, to avail himself of the first occasion to call the attention of congress and the people to the question of its re-charter. The opinions expressed in his annual message of December, 1829, were reiterated in those of December 1830 and 1831; and in that of 1830 he threw out for consideration some suggestions in relation to a substitute. At the session of 1831-2. an act was passed, by a majority of both houses of congress, re-chartering the present bank upon which the president felt it his duty to put his constitutional veto. In his message returning that act he repeated and enlarged upon the principles and views briefly asserted in his annual messages, declaring the bank to be, in his opinion, both inexpedient and unconstitutional, and announcing to his countrymen, very unequivocally, his firm determination never to sanction, by his approval, the continuance of that institution, or the establishment of any other upon similar principles. There are strong reasons for believing that the motive of the bank, in asking for a re-charter at that session of congress, was to make it a leading question in the election of a president of the United States the ensuing November, and all steps deemed necessary were taken to procure from the people a reversal of the president's decision. Although the charter was approaching its termination, and the bank was aware that it was the intention of the government to use the public deposites, as fast as they accrued, in the payments of the public debt, yet it did extend its loans from January, 1831, to May, 1832, from 42,402,304 dollars to 70,428,070, dollars being an increase of 28,025,766 dollars in sixteen months. It is confidently believed, that the leading object of this immense extension of its loans, was to bring as large a portion of the people as possible under its power and influence; and it has been disclosed that some of the largest sums were granted on very unusual terms to conductors of the public press. In some of these cases the motive was made manifest by the nominal or insufficient security taken for the loans, by the large amounts discounted, by the extraordinary time allowed for payment, and especially by the subsequent conduct of those receiving the accommodations. Having taken these preliminary steps to obtain control over public opinion, the bank came into congress, and asked a new charter. The object avowed by many of the advocates of the bank was to put the president to the test, that the country might know his final determination relative to the bank, prior to the ensuing election. Many documents and articles were printed and circulated at the expense of the bank, to bring the people to a favourable decision upon its pretensions. Those whom the bank appears to have made its debtors, for the special occasion, were warned of the ruin which awaited them should the president be sustained, and attempts were made to alarm the whole people, by painting the depression in the price of property and produce, and the general loss, inconvenience, and distress which it was represented would immediately follow the re-election of the president in opposition to the bank. Can it now be said that the question of a re-charter of the bank was not decided at the election which ensued? Had the veto been equivocal, or had it not covered the whole ground,—if it had merely taken exceptions to the details of the bill, or to the time of its passage,-if it had not met the whole ground of constitutionality and expediency, then there might have been some plausibility for the allegation that the question was not decided by the people. It was to compel the president to take his stand that the question was brought forward at that particular time. He met the challenge, willingly took the position into which his adversaries sought to force him, and frankly declared his unalterable opposition to the bank, as being both unconstitutional and inexpedient. On that ground the case was argued to the people, and now that the people have sustained the president, notwithstanding the array of influence and power which was brought to bear upon him, it is too late, he confidently thinks, to say that the question has not been decided. Whatever may be the opinion of others, the president considers his re-election as a decision of the people against the bank. In the concluding paragraph of his veto message he said "I have now done my duty to my country. If sustained by my fellowcitizens, I shall be grateful and happy; if not, I shall find in the motives which impel me ample grounds for contentment and peace." He was sustained by a just people, and he desires to evince his gratitude, by carrying into effect their decision so far as it depends upon him. Of all the substitutes for the present bank which have been suggested, none seems to have united any considerable portion of the public in its |