Speaker,  I  am  done  with  this  party  war&re,  and
proceed  to  discuss  the  reasons  of  the  Secretan
of  the  Treasury  for  the  removal  of  the  deposits,
as  I  have  patiently,  calmly,  and  delibrntelj
considered  them,  independent  of  all  party  Irfai
and  party  influence.
As  the  gentleman  from  Penn^lvania  u
marked,  the  Secretary's  report  connsts  of  ab-
stract propositions,  of  facts,  and  of  infereBoe»

His  first  proposition  is,  *'  that  the  power  of
removal  was  intended  to  be  reserved  eids-
sively  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  asd
that,  according  to  the  stipulations  in  the  charter,
Congress  could  not  direct  it  to  be  doiM.^  I
totally  deny  this  position,  though  I  am  aware
that  the  gentleman  from  Pennsyhrauiaf  in  the
preliminary  discussion  on  the  reference  of  tbU
subject,  and  the  bank  directors  tiiemselveS)  in
their  report,  concede  it  to  the  fullest  extait.
And  I  can  readily  perceive,  too,  why  the  bank
does  concede  it.  If  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury
and  the  President  had  been  the  friends  of  the
institution,  and  if  Congress  had  nndertaleo  to
order  and  direct  the  removal  for  reasoos  of
danger  to  the  deposits,  the  bank  would,  ^
doubt,  have  set  up  this  position  to  preveot  tbe
original  action  of  the  l^^ative  power  of  ^
Government.  It  asserts  a  no  less  important  prio-
ciple  than  that  of  the  power  of  Congress  to
delegate  its  trust  of  keeping  si^ely  tbe  public
moneys  of  the  United  States  ^,  the  Isw
creating  the  charter,  neither  byitsinteoiioa  a:
its  words^  means  by  saying  ^  unless  th«  Sec-
retary of  the  Treasury  shall  at  any  time  othtf-
wise  order  or  direct "  that  Congress  abodd  not
retain  that  power  whic^  the  omatitiition  it^^
confided  to  the  Legislature,  of  controilli^  ^


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS.
427


Fkbbdabt,  1834.]


Bemovai  of  tke  DeponU.
