History of Money and Private Central Bank
Ownership by Freemason/Zionists Mafia

author: Alexander James - E-mail address
Source Portland Independent Media Center

Part 5. More Historical Information on The Banking Frauds

The U.S. Bank was chartered by Congress in the year 1791, its charter was to last for 20 years, and expire in 1811. George Washington signed the bill establishing the bank after listening to the advice of his secretary of the treasury, Alexander Hamilton. Thomas Jefferson opposed the creation of the bank as unconstitutional. He said:

" A private central bank issuing the public currency is a greater menace to the liberties of the people than a standing army"

The U.S. Bank was modeled after the Bank of England. The Bank of England was established by the Jesuits in 1694 to control that country and make slaves of the people. The Bank was given the right to create fiat money by use of the printing press.

The printing press was God's gift to Martin Luther. The printing of the Bible in the languages of the people was the weapon that Luther used to break the chains of millions and free them from the Babylonian Captivity. Rome's answer to the printing of the Holy Scriptures was the printing of MONEY. The Bank of England was allowed to print money and loan to the government at 8% interest.

When the Bank of England controlled British Government found out that the U.S. Bank would not be re-chartered, they declared war on the United States. Washington D.C., was invaded and the White House was burned to the ground. General Andrew Jackson (another great Scot whose parents came from Hibernia) was the hero of that war.

At the battle of New Orleans on January 8, 1815, with a small army of volunteers, General Jackson defeated 10,000 British veterans of the campaign against Napoleon in Europe. It was the most lop-sided victory in the history of warfare. During the 19th century, January 8, was a BIG holiday and celebration in the U.S. Almost like the 4th of July in January.

Despite this great victory over the British and the Bank of England, the Bank of the U.S. was re-chartered in 1816 for another 20 years.

The people loved the hero of the battle of New Orleans and elected him to the Presidency in the year 1829. He served his country in that high office for 8 years. Little did he know before taking the oath of office that he would face a far more dangerous enemy than ever he faced from the British rifles.

That ferocious enemy was the MONEY POWER represented by the U.S. Bank.

Because of massive fraud and corruption, President Jackson was determined not to renew its charter when it expired in 1836. Fighting the British was child's play compared to fighting the money power. His main opponent was Nicholas Biddle who was president of the Second Bank.

Biddle was Rome's agent in America . . . and her best brain. He graduated from the University of Pennsylvania at the age of 13 and from Princeton at 17. He mastered the secret science of paper money and banking at an early age.

He was head of the 2nd Bank of the U.S. With many Congressmen and Senators financially beholden to him, he wielded great political power. He deliberately created a banking panic and a depression for the purpose of frightening the voters and blaming it on President Jackson. Biddle was later arrested and charged with fraud but his powerful protectors shielded him from justice . . . in this life.

Jackson's unflinching determination and unwavering patriotism prevailed against Biddle and his Bank. President Jackson called the Bank a monster and was determined to pull all its teeth. He said:

"I am ready with the screws to draw every tooth and then the stumps."

And our hero did exactly as he promised. When he left office, the U.S. had a real currency consisting of silver and gold coins. Our hero called paper money "RAG MONEY" and this is what he said about it:

"The paper-money system and its natural associations--monopoly and exclusive privileges--have already struck their roots too deep in the soil, and it will require all your efforts to check its further growth and to eradicate the evil."

The Federal Reserve or 3rd Bank of the U.S.

So great was the victory of our hero, that Rome did not try again to establish a central bank until the 20th century. The groundwork for this 3rd Bank was laid during a top secret meeting on Jekyll Island, Georgia, in 1910. The co-conspirators were some of the most powerful people in Europe and America. They included: Theodore Roosevelt, Paul Warburg, Woodrow Wilson, Nelson W. Aldrich, Benjamin Strong, Frank A. Vanderlip, John D. Rockefeller, etc., etc.

Paul M. Warburg (Daddy WARbucks) was an immigrant from Germany and a partner in the banking firm of Kuhn, Loeb & Co. He represented the German Central Bank (Reichsbank) and the Rothschilds and Warburgs in Europe.

Montagu Norman was the head of the Bank of England during the re-birth of the U.S. Bank. He worked closely with Benjamin Strong and was the British liaison in the re-creation of the monster.

Morgan was the American representative of the Rothschilds and the Jesuit controlled Bank of England in America.

Aldrich was the Republican whip in the Senate, chairman of the National Monetary Commission and father-in-law to John. D. Rockefeller.

Strong was head of J.P. Morgan's Bankers Trust Co.

The Rockefeller name is synonymous with money and banking. Rockefeller worked closely with J.P. Morgan and Daddy WARbucks to bring about the Federal Reserve System. His son, Nelson Aldrich Rockefeller, while Governor of New York State, was the agent behind the building of the Twin Towers in New York City.

Finally, on Dec. 23, 1913, the Federal Reserve Act was signed into law by President Woodrow Wilson. This was the monster that President Jackson had slain come to life again. No sooner was the Bank re-chartered than WWI began. The Federal Reserve Bank lent money to both sides. They financed the Russian Revolution and the overthrow of the Czar. Economic cycles of boom and bust followed the manipulations of the currency by the Bank. The Bank caused the Great Depression and financed Hitler in Germany and the Fascists in Japan.

The Bank instituted the Income Tax which was modeled on the Pope's slave tax during the Dark Ages.

The tender mercies of the wicked are cruel....President Jackson's portrait is on this Federal Reserve Bank $20 dollar bill. If he came back to earth today, the first thing he would do is abolish this monster.

If the 2nd bank of the U.S. was unspeakably corrupt, the 3rd Bank was even worse. This Bank financed the rise of Hitler in Germany and was responsible for the financing of the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia.

The U.S. Bank Today.

The printing presses of the U.S. Bank are running night and day pouring billions of dollars into the economy in order to keep the fiat system afloat. In the 6000 years of world history, no fiat currency has ever survived. By 1870, the U.S. was the largest producer of silver in the world and we had FREE COINAGE, meaning anybody with silver or gold could take it to the U.S. Mint and have it coined into money.

Many other nations of the world were on a bimetallic system too. These included, India, China, Japan, Mexico and most of the South American Republics. The MONEY POWER pushed the world off the bimetallic system onto the gold standard. Today, not one single country is on a gold standard due to the manipulations of the gold cartel.

Some Highlights of U.S. Financial History.

Date Event

1787 U.S. Constitution is ratified granting Congress alone the right to COIN money - not to print it. Only gold and silver were considered REAL money!!

1791 1st. U.S. Bank is chartered.

1811 Charter of U.S. Bank expires.

1812 War with Great Britain over the lapsed charter. The MONEY POWER tries to get the New England States to leave the Union.

1816 2nd Bank of the U.S. is chartered.

1832 President Jackson vetoes charter of 2nd Bank.

1860 Civil War begins. Defeated MONEY POWER successful in getting 13 States to leave the Union.

1862 Congress passes Banking Act authorizing the printing of paper money (greenbacks) to finance the war. This was supposed to be an emergency measure only until the war was over. All the provisions of the Banking Act were to expire in 20 years.

1873 Silver is demonetized. Free coinage of silver is ended. U.S. goes on gold standard.

1882 Banking Act expires but is renewed for another 20 years.

1901 President McKinley is assassinated by MONEY POWER and Roosevelt becomes President.

1902 Banking Act which gave the U.S. paper money was supposed to expire this year. Due to the murder of President McKinley, the banking laws and paper money system was continued.

1910 Postal Savings Bank is inaugurated.

1910 Secret meeting on Jekyll Island, Georgia, to charter 3rd U.S. Bank.

1913 Monster reborn. President Wilson signs bill authorizing the creation of 3rd U.S. Bank.

1917 President Wilson destroys Postal Savings Bank by refusing to lift ceiling on deposits.

1929 Great Depression begins due to manipulation of economy by U.S. Bank.

1933 Possession of gold is outlawed. U.S. citizens forbidden to own gold by order of President Roosevelt.

1960 Goldfinger begins to steal U.S. gold reserves from Fort Knox.

1971 U.S. is completely off the gold standard. Foreign holders of dollars are promised U.S. land as collateral instead of gold.

1990 Fall of the Soviet Union. U.S. gold reserves start to move to European Central Bank.

Since the time of Pope Constantine, and especially since the blessed Reformation, Satan has sought to dominate Civil Governments by means of the MONEY POWER. St. Paul said this to the ROMAN Christians:

"Let EVERY soul be subject to the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves DAMNATION. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil......" (Romans 16:1-2).

Roman Emperor Piux IX in his Syllabus of Errors said that it is an ERROR to say that the Government is above the "church."

"Kings and princes are not only exempt from the jurisdiction of the Church, but are superior to the Church in deciding questions of jurisdiction. -- Damnatio "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851. "

As the end of time approaches, the Antichrist is using the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank, the European Central Bank and the Vatican Bank to finance the Last Great Inquisition and bring the entire world under the Papacy.

Day of Infamy, August 15, 1971.

August 15, 1971, is a day that will live in infamy. That was the day that Standard Oil controlled President Richard Nixon assassinated the DOLLAR. He took the dollar off the gold standard and paved the way for the ruin of the country.

In pagan Rome, August 15 was the big day for the devotees of Venus or the Queen of Heaven otherwise known as the Egyptian Isis or Hathor the cow goddess. Roman pagans believed that Venus was taken up alive into heaven and crowned Queen of heaven. Papal Rome substituted Mary (the humble mother of Jesus) for Venus and continued to observe their pagan holiday. Now they call it the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary!!

Venus or the mother goddess was called Isis or Hathor in Egypt and Diana of the Ephesians in Asia Minor.

August 15, 1534 was also the day that Ignatius LIEola founded the deadly Jesuit order.

Rome steals U.S. lands!!

After this date, foreign holders of U.S. currency could not redeem their dollars in gold . . . so the vast lands of the Western U.S. were promised as collateral instead of gold.

Judas Iscariot was a perfect type of the papacy at the end of the world....Judas betrayed his Lord for 2 things: MONEY and LAND.

Of course everybody knows that Fort Knox, Kentucky, is like the United States of America impregnable from the outside. So if anybody wants to penetrate that fortress and steal the gold the thief has to come from within!!

By 1950, the U.S. Government owned almost half of all the world's gold supply and the dollar was as good as gold. Now it is ALL gone . . . shipped off to Swiss and German Banks and credited to the account of the Vatican Bank!!

During World War II, Fort Knox was modified to allow easy access to the MAIN STORAGE VAULT. Beginning in 1961, gold began to flow out and was taken to the Federal Reserve Vaults in New York City Federal Reserve Building at 33 LIBERTY St.

33 LIBERTY St. (the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel) in downtown New York City (2 blocks from Wall St.) is the home of the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank. All the stolen gold was taken here and stored in the basement. It was used to finance the Vietnam War, the Cold War, Star Wars, Iraqi War, Serbian War, illegal immigration, drug traffic, abortion clinics etc.,etc.

Origin of the U.S. gold supply.

In the year of our Lord 1579, Sir Francis Drake, sailing in his ship The Golden Hind, landed on the Western shore of North America and claimed that land for Queen Elizabeth I. Drake called the land Nova Albion. Sir Francis Drake was a fearless soldier/sailor and a devout Protestant Christian. There were NO Incas or Mexicans there at that time. 269 years later the heirs of Protestant England finally took possession of the land

Gold was discovered in California the very year the Mexican-American war of 1846-1848 ended. California was annexed to the United States following that war. For centuries before its annexation, the Vatican had missions all over the State and they knew all about the location of the gold by torturing the Indians to make them reveal the locations of the mother lode. Monks tortured the Indians to make them reveal the location of the gold.

Cities like Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Diego, Santa Barbara, San Jose, etc., etc,. were begun as "missions" not to tell the Indians the "good news" of the Gospel but as slaving centers to collect the gold and ship it to the Vatican.

The monks used the Indians as slave laborers to mine the gold and ship it back to the Vatican. At that time, the Papal States were besieged on all sides and they desperately needed the gold to hire mercenaries to fight General Garibaldi.

Rome has insatiable lust for gold.

Go all the way back to the time of Julius Caesar and you will find the same unchanging feature of Rome namely a LUST FOR GOLD.

The gold-rape of the New World began with Christopher Columbus, Francisco Pizarro, and Hernando Cortez. Together these men killed millions of peaceful Indians to gratify their lust for gold.

These three men had ONE thing in common: They all had an insatiable lust for gold and they all had the EVIL EYE:

"He that hasteneth to be rich hath an evil eye, and considereth not that poverty shall come upon him" (Proverbs 28:22).

Despite the vast quantity of gold stolen from the Indians by the Conquistadors, Spain became a very poor country within a century of the theft.

This is the one unchanging characteristic of the 4th wild beast. St. Paul describes her in vivid terms:

"For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows" (I Timothy 6:10).

Stolen gold financed the Spanish Inquisition!!

The vast hoard of gold stolen from the Indians of the New World was used by the Spanish Inquisition to fight the Reformation in the Old World. This included the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre, the Invincible Spanish Armada, the 30 Years' War, the Gunpowder Plot etc., etc.

In the year 1588, the invincible Spanish Armada, financed by stolen gold, set sail to conquer Protestant England. Raging storms helped Sir Francis Drake send it to the bottom of the sea.

The annexation of California stopped this gold train dead in its tracks. Rome never forgave the United States and was determined to get the gold back. Here is how she pulled it off: Rome began her 100 Years' War on the United States with the assassination of President McKinley by a Jesuit assassin in 1901.

Theodore Roosevelt succeeded President McKinley and was the first of what we call the Imperial Presidents. His Attorney General, Charles Bonaparte, founded the Bureau of Inquisition later called the Federal Bureau of Inquisition.

President Taft was assured of re-election in 1912 but Roosevelt "threw his hat into the ring" and ran against him thus guaranteeing the election of Democrat Woodrow Wilson.

Woodrow Wilson succeeded President Taft. This man was a real tool of the Jesuits. He signed the Federal Reserve Act on Dec. 23, 1913. This Act was the brainchild of Paul Warburg, a German immigrant. It created a private central bank independent of Congress. Even though it was called FEDERAL Reserve it had nothing to do with the Federal Government being a tool of Wall St. and the New York Bankers.

In 1917, Wilson vetoed legislation that would have lifted the ceiling on the Postal Savings Bank. In the same year, he got the U.S. involved in World War I.

Paul Warburg (WARbucks) immigrated from Germany in 1902. He is known as the "Father of the Federal Reserve Bank." Wilson appointed him a member of the Federal Reserve Board. His brother, Max Warburg, was chief of the secret police in Germany during World War I.

Copy of the Act establishing the Federal Reserve Banks.

The writing above says:

"To provide for the establishment of Federal reserve banks......and for other purposes"

The other purposes include: financing wars, creating revolutions, devaluing currencies, creating depressions, causing inflation and ....stealing the gold reserves of the United States!!

This man was the 5th cousin of Theodore Roosevelt and Assistant Secretary of the Navy during the Wilson Administration. He knew that the surest way to destroy a Republic was through entangling alliances and foreign wars.

President Roosevelt confiscated the people's gold supply in 1934 under the Gold Reserve Act. In other words, it was illegal for the citizens of the land of the free to own GOLD. All the gold that was collected at that time was stored in Fort Knox.

Now that Rome's boys had stolen all the gold from the people, the next task was to get it out of the country. Since 1971, when the U.S. Government refused to back the dollar with gold, vast quantities of gold have been taken from Fort Knox and deposited in European banks. Nobody is allowed access to the gold supply and they refuse to submit to an AUDIT by an INDEPENDENT Auditing Company.

Hers is a quote from a gold market watch website called Zeal.com:

"In a gold lease transaction, a central bank loans gold out to a high-quality borrower, usually called a "bullion bank." The central bank physically delivers real physical gold from its vaults to the bullion bank, creating a gold loan. The central bank then gets to keep the gold on its books as an asset, because the loan is contractually supposed to be paid back in the future, and fee simple title never technically changes on the fungible gold. The end result is the central banks can dump gold and depress the gold price while at the same time maintaining the fiction that the gold is on hand in their vaults to back their fiat currency experiments."

"Official" U.S. gold reserves as of May 2001 are about 8000 tonnes. Total amount of gold leased out is 15,000 tonnes. Where did all the gold come from??

Quoting again from the Zeal website:

"Estimates of the total amount of gold leased run from 5,000 tonnes from the anti-gold partisans to 16,000 tonnes from pro-gold factions. After all of our research, we certainly believe that number is on the high end of the scale. If, for example, 15,000 tonnes of central bank gold has been flooding the global gold market in the last decade, that would explain much of the drop in the gold price. This is the equivalent of six YEARS worth of TOTAL world gold production being dumped on the open gold markets. Natural economics laws dictate that when a wave of artificial marginal supply temporarily overwhelms natural demand, prices plummet."


Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee: Exchange Stabilization Fund/Bundesbank Gold Swap Operation Exposed

Source: Business Wire

Publication date: 2001-04-23

DALLAS--(BUSINESS WIRE)--April 23, 2001--The Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee will reveal proof of the suppression of the gold price by the U.S. and German governments and bullion banks at the GATA African Gold Summit on May 10, 2001, in Durban, South Africa.

Attending will be government officials from South Africa and other African gold-producing countries, representatives of South Africa's National Union of Mineworkers, major gold producers, and the world press.

For more than two years GATA has claimed that the gold market has been manipulated lower by a faction of the U.S. government and a cartel of bullion banks to the detriment of mostly poor gold-producing nations.

One of the speakers at the Durban conference, GATA consultant Reginald H. Howe, has brought suit in U.S. District Court in Boston, against participants in the scheme. The defendants are: the Bank for International Settlements; Alan Greenspan, chairman of the Board of Governors of the U.S. Federal Reserve System and a director of the BIS; William J. McDonough, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and a director of the BIS; five major bullion banks, J.P. Morgan & Co., Chase Manhattan Corp., Citigroup Inc., Goldman Sachs Group Inc., and Deutsche Bank; and Lawrence H. Summers, former secretary of the treasury, who by law exercised control over the U.S. Exchange Stabilization Fund (ESF), subject only to approval by the president.

On April 19, 2001, Reg Howe presented the following to the court. It is posted at http://www.gata.org/lawsuit.html.

"The Department of Justice's memorandum on behalf of the Secretary of the Treasury's motion to dismiss asserts and re-emphasizes the secretary's contention 'that in fact the ESF has no holdings of gold and has not traded in gold or gold derivatives since 1978.'

"The plaintiff has recently discovered a highly relevant statement in the transcript of the Federal Open Market Committee's meeting on January 31, 1995. Responding to a question by then Fed Governor Lawrence Lindsey about the ESF's legal authority to engage in a financial rescue package for Mexico, J. Virgil Mattingly, the Fed's general counsel, stated:

"'It's pretty clear that these ESF operations are authorized. I don't think there is a legal problem in terms of the authority. The statute (31 U.S.C. s. 5302) is very broadly worded in terms of words like 'credit' -- it has covered things like the gold swaps -- and it confers broad authority.'"

James Turk, who also will speak at the Durban conference, revealed the following in a recent commentary, "Behind Closed Doors," which also can be read at http://www.gata.org/lawsuit.html.:

"The Treasury Department has changed the designation of nearly 1,700 tonnes of inventoried gold at the U.S. Mint's facility in West Point, N.Y., which is approximately 21 percent of the total U.S. gold reserve, from 'Gold Bullion Reserve' to 'Custodial Gold.'

"The August 2000 Status Report on U.S. Treasury-Owned gold stored at West Point has a designation of 'Gold Bullion Reserve.' But the September 2000 and subsequent status reports inexplicably designate this same gold that is stored at the U.S. Mint at West Point as 'Custodial Gold.'

"This change in the descriptive label for nearly 1,700 tonnes of gold at West Point from 'Gold Bullion Reserve' to 'Custodial Gold' was purposeful. It happened for a reason. This conclusion is all the more plausible because the Treasury did not change the classification from 'Gold Bullion Reserve' to 'Custodial Gold' to describe the gold stored in Fort Knox or at the U.S. Mint at Denver."

Turk goes on to establish "that the ESF has 'gold swaps' with the Bundesbank. According to Turk, "It therefore does not require much conjecture to add one supposition to the equation by concluding that the gold at West Point has been swapped with gold owned by the Bundesbank, thereby necessitating its reclassification from 'Gold Bullion Reserve' to 'Custodial Gold.' The Treasury Department wanted to make gold available to some bullion banks."

"We now know what has happened. The Bundesbank has loaned 1,700 tonnes, half its 3,400 tonnes reserve; the other 1,700 tonnes were swapped for gold in the U.S. reserves, requiring the change in the West Point vault from 'Gold Bullion Reserve' to 'Custodial Gold.'

"In other words, the Bundesbank's vault is empty because half its gold is stored at West Point, not Europe, and the other half has been loaned out."

Further evidence of the validity of the GATA/Turk claims come from the Bundesbank itself at http://www.bundesbank.de/ezb/de/publications/pdf/statintreserves.pdf

On Page 37 on the PDF file, some numerical examples of how the accounting for gold reserves is done are given. Example 3 states:

"3. 20 Dec. 1999: 'A' undertakes a gold swap with the United States Federal Reserve in which 'A' provides the Federal Reserve with 1,000 ounces of gold in exchange for USD 300,000, in currency. The transaction will be reversed on 20 January 1999, at the spot price of the gold prevailing in the market at that moment."

GATA chairman Bill Murphy says: "The New York Federal Reserve is an agent for the Exchange Stabilization Fund, and while these numbers are small, it is clearly more evidence of a substantial ESF/Bundesbank operation that James Turk refers to.

"This is most troubling, since both Mr. Greenspan directly and Mr. Summers indirectly have asserted that neither the Federal Reserve nor the secretary of the treasury acting through the ESF has authority to manipulate dollar gold prices. In a letter to Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman dated January 19, 2000, Greenspan stated that transactions by the Federal Reserve "aimed at manipulating the price of gold or otherwise interfering in the free trade of gold, would be wholly inappropriate." Similarly, officials who worked under Secretary Summers, though not Summers himself, denied any interventions in the gold market by the ESF and have made those assertions in dozens of letters to congressmen and to inquiring individuals all over the world."

Murphy continues: "What is so disturbing is that a few bullion banks and the ESF have made a State Department decision that a privileged few in the financial world count, while the economies and hundreds of millions of citizens of the poor gold-producing countries in Africa do not. The ESF operation has suppressed the price of gold hundreds of dollars below its natural equilibrium price and deprived the natural resource-rich sub-Saharan African countries of desperately needed money to fight crime, disease, and unemployment.

"In the end this gold market collusion will make Watergate look like child's play, as it impugns the proposal by the Clinton administration to sell the gold of the International Monetary Fund in the name of helping poor countries. It also may affect the governments of Britain, Germany, and Switzerland in regard to the motives of their recent gold sales and lending."

Publication date: 2001-04-23

© 2001, YellowBrix, Inc.


President Jackson's Veto Message Regarding the Bank of the United States; July 10, 1832


WASHINGTON, July 10, 1832.

To the Senate.

The bill " to modify and continue " the act entitled "An act to incorporate the subscribers to the Bank of the United States " was presented to me on the 4th July instant. Having considered it with that solemn regard to the principles of the Constitution which the day was calculated to inspire, and come to the conclusion that it ought not to become a law, I herewith return it to the Senate, in which it originated, with my objections.

A bank of the United States is in many respects convenient for the Government and useful to the people. Entertaining this opinion, and deeply impressed with the belief that some of the powers and privileges possessed by the existing bank are unauthorized by the Constitution, subversive of the rights of the States, and dangerous to the liberties of the people, I felt it my duty at an early period of my Administration to call the attention of Congress to the practicability of organizing an institution combining all its advantages and obviating these objections. I sincerely regret that in the act before me I can perceive none of those modifications of the bank charter which are necessary, in my opinion, to make it compatible with justice, with sound policy, or with the Constitution of our country.

The present corporate body, denominated the president, directors, and company of the Bank of the United States, will have existed at the time this act is intended to take effect twenty years. It enjoys an exclusive privilege of banking under the authority of the General Government, a monopoly of its favor and support, and, as a necessary consequence, almost a monopoly of the foreign and domestic exchange. The powers, privileges, and favors bestowed upon it in the original charter, by increasing the value of the stock far above its par value, operated as a gratuity of many millions to the stockholders.

An apology may be found for the failure to guard against this result in the consideration that the effect of the original act of incorporation could not be certainly foreseen at the time of its passage. The act before me proposes another gratuity to the holders of the same stock, and in many cases to the same men, of at least seven millions more. This donation finds no apology in any uncertainty as to the effect of the act. On all hands it is conceded that its passage will increase at least so or 30 per cent more the market price of the stock, subject to the payment of the annuity of $200,000 per year secured by the act, thus adding in a moment one-fourth to its par value. It is not our own citizens only who are to receive the bounty of our Government. More than eight millions of the stock of this bank are held by foreigners. By this act the American Republic proposes virtually to make them a present of some millions of dollars. For these gratuities to foreigners and to some of our own opulent citizens the act secures no equivalent whatever. They are the certain gains of the present stockholders under the operation of this act, after making full allowance for the payment of the bonus.

Every monopoly and all exclusive privileges are granted at the expense of the public, which ought to receive a fair equivalent. The many millions which this act proposes to bestow on the stockholders of the existing bank must come directly or indirectly out of the earnings of the American people. It is due to them, therefore, if their Government sell monopolies and exclusive privileges, that they should at least exact for them as much as they are worth in open market. The value of the monopoly in this case may be correctly ascertained. The twenty-eight millions of stock would probably be at an advance of 50 per cent, and command in market at least $42,000,000, subject to the payment of the present bonus. The present value of the monopoly, therefore, is $17,000,000, and this the act proposes to sell for three millions, payable in fifteen annual installments of $200,000 each.

It is not conceivable how the present stockholders can have any claim to the special favor of the Government. The present corporation has enjoyed its monopoly during the period stipulated in the original contract. If we must have such a corporation, why should not the Government sell out the whole stock and thus secure to the people the full market value of the privileges granted? Why should not Congress create and sell twenty-eight millions of stock, incorporating the purchasers with all the powers and privileges secured in this act and putting the premium upon the sales into the Treasury?

But this act does not permit competition in the purchase of this monopoly. It seems to be predicated on the erroneous idea that the present stockholders have a prescriptive right not only to the favor but to the bounty of Government. It appears that more than a fourth part of the stock is held by foreigners and the residue is held by a few hundred of our own citizens, chiefly of the richest class. For their benefit does this act exclude the whole American people from competition in the purchase of this monopoly and dispose of it for many millions less than it is worth. This seems the less excusable because some of our citizens not now stockholders petitioned that the door of competition might be opened, and offered to take a charter on terms much more favorable to the Government and country.

But this proposition, although made by men whose aggregate wealth is believed to be equal to all the private stock in the existing bank, has been set aside, and the bounty of our Government is proposed to be again bestowed on the few who have been fortunate enough to secure the stock and at this moment wield the power of the existing institution. I can not perceive the justice or policy of this course. If our Government must sell monopolies, it would seem to be its duty to take nothing less than their full value, and if gratuities must be made once in fifteen or twenty years let them not be bestowed on the subjects of a foreign government nor upon a designated and favored class of men in our own country. It is but justice and good policy, as far as the nature of the case will admit, to confine our favors to our own fellow-citizens, and let each in his turn enjoy an opportunity to profit by our bounty. In the bearings of the act before me upon these points I find ample reasons why it should not become a law.

It has been urged as an argument in favor of rechartering the present bank that the calling in its loans will produce great embarrassment and distress. The time allowed to close its concerns is ample, and if it has been well managed its pressure will be light, and heavy only in case its management has been bad. If, therefore, it shall produce distress, the fault will be its own, and it would furnish a reason against renewing a power which has been so obviously abused. But will there ever be a time when this reason will be less powerful? To acknowledge its force is to admit that the bank ought to be perpetual, and as a consequence the present stockholders and those inheriting their rights as successors be established a privileged order, clothed both with great political power and enjoying immense pecuniary advantages from their connection with the Government.

The modifications of the existing charter proposed by this act are not such, in my view, as make it consistent with the rights of the States or the liberties of the people. The qualification of the right of the bank to hold real estate, the limitation of its power to establish branches, and the power reserved to Congress to forbid the circulation of small notes are restrictions comparatively of little value or importance. All the objectionable principles of the existing corporation, and most of its odious features, are retained without alleviation.

The fourth section provides " that the notes or bills of the said corporation, although the same be, on the faces thereof, respectively made payable at one place only, shall nevertheless be received by the said corporation at the bank or at any of the offices of discount and deposit thereof if tendered in liquidation or payment of any balance or balances due to said corporation or to such office of discount and deposit from any other incorporated bank." This provision secures to the State banks a legal privilege in the Bank of the United States which is withheld from all private citizens. If a State bank in Philadelphia owe the Bank of the United States and have notes issued by the St. Louis branch, it can pay the debt with those notes, but if a merchant, mechanic, or other private citizen be in like circumstances he can not by law pay his debt with those notes, but must sell them at a discount or send them to St. Louis to be cashed. This boon conceded to the State banks, though not unjust in itself, is most odious because it does not measure out equal justice to the high and the low, the rich and the poor. To the extent of its practical effect it is a bond of union among the banking establishments of the nation, erecting them into an interest separate from that of the people, and its necessary tendency is to unite the Bank of the United States and the State banks in any measure which may be thought conducive to their common interest.

The ninth section of the act recognizes principles of worse tendency than any provision of the present charter.

It enacts that " the cashier of the bank shall annually report to the Secretary of the Treasury the names of all stockholders who are not resident citizens of the United States, and on the application of the treasurer of any State shall make out and transmit to such treasurer a list of stockholders residing in or citizens of such State, with the amount of stock owned by each." Although this provision, taken in connection with a decision of the Supreme Court, surrenders, by its silence, the right of the States to tax the banking institutions created by this corporation under the name of branches throughout the Union, it is evidently intended to be construed as a concession of their right to tax that portion of the stock which may be held by their own citizens and residents. In this light, if the act becomes a law, it will be understood by the States, who will probably proceed to levy a tax equal to that paid upon the stock of banks incorporated by themselves. In some States that tax is now I per cent, either on the capital or on the shares, and that may be assumed as the amount which all citizen or resident stockholders would be taxed under the operation of this act. As it is only the stock held in the States and not that employed within them which would be subject to taxation, and as the names of foreign stockholders are not to be reported to the treasurers of the States, it is obvious that the stock held by them will be exempt from this burden. Their annual profits will therefore be I per cent more than the citizen stockholders, and as the annual dividends of the bank may be safely estimated at 7 per cent, the stock will be worth 10 or 15 per cent more to foreigners than to citizens of the United States. To appreciate the effects which this state of things will produce, we must take a brief review of the operations and present condition of the Bank of the United States.

By documents submitted to Congress at the present session it appears that on the 1st of January, 1832, of the twenty-eight millions of private stock in the corporation, $8,405,500 were held by foreigners, mostly of Great Britain. The amount of stock held in the nine Western and Southwestern States is $140,200, and in the four Southern States is $5,623,100, and in the Middle and Eastern States is about $13,522,000. The profits of the bank in 1831, as shown in a statement to Congress, were about $3,455,598; of this there accrued in the nine western States about $1,640,048; in the four Southern States about $352,507, and in the Middle and Eastern States about $1,463,041. As little stock is held in the West, it is obvious that the debt of the people in that section to the bank is principally a debt to the Eastern and foreign stockholders; that the interest they pay upon it is carried into the Eastern States and into Europe, and that it is a burden upon their industry and a drain of their currency, which no country can bear without inconvenience and occasional distress. To meet this burden and equalize the exchange operations of the bank, the amount of specie drawn from those States through its branches within the last two years, as shown by its official reports, was about $6,000,000. More than half a million of this amount does not stop in the Eastern States, but passes on to Europe to pay the dividends of the foreign stockholders. In the principle of taxation recognized by this act the Western States find no adequate compensation for this perpetual burden on their industry and drain of their currency. The branch bank at Mobile made last year $95,140, yet under the provisions of this act the State of Alabama can raise no revenue from these profitable operations, because not a share of the stock is held by any of her citizens. Mississippi and Missouri are in the same condition in relation to the branches at Natchez and St. Louis, and such, in a greater or less degree, is the condition of every Western State. The tendency of the plan of taxation which this act proposes will be to place the whole United States in the same relation to foreign countries which the Western States now bear to the Eastern. When by a tax on resident stockholders the stock of this bank is made worth 10 or 15 per cent more to foreigners than to residents, most of it will inevitably leave the country.

Thus will this provision in its practical effect deprive the Eastern as well as the Southern and Western States of the means of raising a revenue from the extension of business and great profits of this institution. It will make the American people debtors to aliens in nearly the whole amount due to this bank, and send across the Atlantic from two to five millions of specie every year to pay the bank dividends.

In another of its bearings this provision is fraught with danger. Of the twenty-five directors of this bank five are chosen by the Government and twenty by the citizen stockholders. From all voice in these elections the foreign stockholders are excluded by the charter. In proportion, therefore, as the stock is transferred to foreign holders the extent of suffrage in the choice of directors is curtailed. Already is almost a third of the stock in foreign hands and not represented in elections. It is constantly passing out of the country, and this act will accelerate its departure. The entire control of the institution would necessarily fall into the hands of a few citizen stockholders, and the ease with which the object would be accomplished would be a temptation to designing men to secure that control in their own hands by monopolizing the remaining stock. There is danger that a president and directors would then be able to elect themselves from year to year, and without responsibility or control manage the whole concerns of the bank during the existence of its charter. It is easy to conceive that great evils to our country and its institutions millet flow from such a concentration of power in the hands of a few men irresponsible to the people.

Is there no danger to our liberty and independence in a bank that in its nature has so little to bind it to our country? The president of the bank has told us that most of the State banks exist by its forbearance. Should its influence become concentered, as it may under the operation of such an act as this, in the hands of a self-elected directory whose interests are identified with those of the foreign stockholders, will there not be cause to tremble for the purity of our elections in peace and for the independence of our country in war? Their power would be great whenever they might choose to exert it; but if this monopoly were regularly renewed every fifteen or twenty years on terms proposed by themselves, they might seldom in peace put forth their strength to influence elections or control the affairs of the nation. But if any private citizen or public functionary should interpose to curtail its powers or prevent a renewal of its privileges, it can not be doubted that he would be made to feel its influence.

Should the stock of the bank principally pass into the hands of the subjects of a foreign country, and we should unfortunately become involved in a war with that country, what would be our condition? Of the course which would be pursued by a bank almost wholly owned by the subjects of a foreign power, and managed by those whose interests, if not affections, would run in the same direction there can be no doubt. All its operations within would be in aid of the hostile fleets and armies without. Controlling our currency, receiving our public moneys, and holding thousands of our citizens in dependence, it would be more formidable and dangerous than the naval and military power of the enemy.

If we must have a bank with private stockholders, every consideration of sound policy and every impulse of American feeling admonishes that it should be purely American. Its stockholders should be composed exclusively of our own citizens, who at least ought to be friendly to our Government and willing to support it in times of difficulty and danger. So abundant is domestic capital that competition in subscribing for the stock of local banks has recently led almost to riots. To a bank exclusively of American stockholders, possessing the powers and privileges granted by this act, subscriptions for $200,000,000 could be readily obtained. Instead of sending abroad the stock of the bank in which the Government must deposit its funds and on which it must rely to sustain its credit in times of emergency, it would rather seem to be expedient to prohibit its sale to aliens under penalty of absolute forfeiture.

It is maintained by the advocates of the bank that its constitutionality in all its features ought to be considered as settled by precedent and by the decision of the Supreme Court. To this conclusion I can not assent. Mere precedent is a dangerous source of authority, and should not be regarded as deciding questions of constitutional power except where the acquiescence of the people and the States can be considered as well settled. So far from this being the case on this subject, an argument against the bank might be based on precedent. One Congress, in 1791, decided in favor of a bank; another, in 1811, decided against it. One Congress, in 1815, decided against a bank; another, in 1816, decided in its favor. Prior to the present Congress, therefore, the precedents drawn from that source were equal. If we resort to the States, the expressions of legislative, judicial, and executive opinions against the bank have been probably to those in its favor as 4 to 1. There is nothing in precedent, therefore, which, if its authority were admitted, ought to weigh in favor of the act before me.

If the opinion of the Supreme Court covered the whole ground of this act, it ought not to control the coordinate authorities of this Government. The Congress, the Executive, and the Court must each for itself be guided by its own opinion of the Constitution. Each public officer who takes an oath to support the Constitution swears that he will support it as he understands it, and not as it is understood by others. It is as much the duty of the House of Representatives, of the Senate, and of the President to decide upon the constitutionality of any bill or resolution which may be presented to them for passage or approval as it is of the supreme judges when it may be brought before them for judicial decision. The opinion of the judges has no more authority over Congress than the opinion of Congress has over the judges, and on that point the President is independent of both. The authority of the Supreme Court must not, therefore, be permitted to control the Congress or the Executive when acting in their legislative capacities, but to have only such influence as the force of their reasoning may deserve.

But in the case relied upon the Supreme Court have not decided that all the features of this corporation are compatible with the Constitution. It is true that the court have said that the law incorporating the bank is a constitutional exercise of power by Congress; but taking into view the whole opinion of the court and the reasoning by which they have come to that conclusion, I understand them to have decided that inasmuch as a bank is an appropriate means for carrying into effect the enumerated powers of the General Government, therefore the law incorporating it is in accordance with that provision of the Constitution which declares that Congress shall have power " to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying those powers into execution. " Having satisfied themselves that the word "necessary" in the Constitution means needful," "requisite," "essential," "conducive to," and that "a bank" is a convenient, a useful, and essential instrument in the prosecution of the Government's "fiscal operations," they conclude that to "use one must be within the discretion of Congress " and that " the act to incorporate the Bank of the United States is a law made in pursuance of the Constitution;" "but, " say they, "where the law is not prohibited and is really calculated to effect any of the objects intrusted to the Government, to undertake here to inquire into the degree of its necessity would be to pass the line which circumscribes the judicial department and to tread on legislative ground."

The principle here affirmed is that the "degree of its necessity," involving all the details of a banking institution, is a question exclusively for legislative consideration. A bank is constitutional, but it is the province of the Legislature to determine whether this or that particular power, privilege, or exemption is "necessary and proper" to enable the bank to discharge its duties to the Government, and from their decision there is no appeal to the courts of justice. Under the decision of the Supreme Court, therefore, it is the exclusive province of Congress and the President to decide whether the particular features of this act are necessary and proper in order to enable the bank to perform conveniently and efficiently the public duties assigned to it as a fiscal agent, and therefore constitutional, or unnecessary and improper, and therefore unconstitutional.

Without commenting on the general principle affirmed by the Supreme Court, let us examine the details of this act in accordance with the rule of legislative action which they have laid down. It will be found that many of the powers and privileges conferred on it can not be supposed necessary for the purpose for which it is proposed to be created, and are not, therefore, means necessary to attain the end in view, and consequently not justified by the Constitution.

The original act of incorporation, section 2I, enacts "that no other bank shall be established by any future law of the United States during the continuance of the corporation hereby created, for which the faith of the United States is hereby pledged: Provided, Congress may renew existing charters for banks within the District of Columbia not increasing the capital thereof, and may also establish any other bank or banks in said District with capitals not exceeding in the whole $6,000,000 if they shall deem it expedient." This provision is continued in force by the act before me fifteen years from the ad of March, 1836.

If Congress possessed the power to establish one bank, they had power to establish more than one if in their opinion two or more banks had been " necessary " to facilitate the execution of the powers delegated to them in the Constitution. If they possessed the power to establish a second bank, it was a power derived from the Constitution to be exercised from time to time, and at any time when the interests of the country or the emergencies of the Government might make it expedient. It was possessed by one Congress as well as another, and by all Congresses alike, and alike at every session. But the Congress of 1816 have taken it away from their successors for twenty years, and the Congress of 1832 proposes to abolish it for fifteen years more. It can not be "necessary" or "proper" for Congress to barter away or divest themselves of any of the powers-vested in them by the Constitution to be exercised for the public good. It is not " necessary " to the efficiency of the bank, nor is it "proper'' in relation to themselves and their successors. They may properly use the discretion vested in them, but they may not limit the discretion of their successors. This restriction on themselves and grant of a monopoly to the bank is therefore unconstitutional.

In another point of view this provision is a palpable attempt to amend the Constitution by an act of legislation. The Constitution declares that "the Congress shall have power to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever" over the District of Columbia. Its constitutional power, therefore, to establish banks in the District of Columbia and increase their capital at will is unlimited and uncontrollable by any other power than that which gave authority to the Constitution. Yet this act declares that Congress shall not increase the capital of existing banks, nor create other banks with capitals exceeding in the whole $6,000,000. The Constitution declares that Congress shall have power to exercise exclusive legislation over this District "in all cases whatsoever," and this act declares they shall not. Which is the supreme law of the land? This provision can not be "necessary" or "proper" or constitutional unless the absurdity be admitted that whenever it be "necessary and proper " in the opinion of Congress they have a right to barter away one portion of the powers vested in them by the Constitution as a means of executing the rest.

On two subjects only does the Constitution recognize in Congress the power to grant exclusive privileges or monopolies. It declares that "Congress shall have power to promote the progress of science and useful arts by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries." Out of this express delegation of power have grown our laws of patents and copyrights. As the Constitution expressly delegates to Congress the power to grant exclusive privileges in these cases as the means of executing the substantive power " to promote the progress of science and useful arts," it is consistent with the fair rules of construction to conclude that such a power was not intended to be granted as a means of accomplishing any other end. On every other subject which comes within the scope of Congressional power there is an ever-living discretion in the use of proper means, which can not be restricted or abolished without an amendment of the Constitution. Every act of Congress, therefore, which attempts by grants of monopolies or sale of exclusive privileges for a limited time, or a time without limit, to restrict or extinguish its own discretion in the choice of means to execute its delegated powers is equivalent to a legislative amendment of the Constitution, and palpably unconstitutional.

This act authorizes and encourages transfers of its stock to foreigners and grants them an exemption from all State and national taxation. So far from being "necessary and proper" that the bank should possess this power to make it a safe and efficient agent of the Government in its fiscal operations, it is calculated to convert the Bank of the United States into a foreign bank, to impoverish our people in time of peace, to disseminate a foreign influence through every section of the Republic, and in war to endanger our independence.

The several States reserved the power at the formation of the Constitution to regulate and control titles and transfers of real property, and most, if not all, of them have laws disqualifying aliens from acquiring or holding lands within their limits. But this act, in disregard of the undoubted right of the States to prescribe such disqualifications, gives to aliens stockholders in this bank an interest and title, as members of the corporation, to all the real property it may acquire within any of the States of this Union. This privilege granted to aliens is not "necessary" to enable the bank to perform its public duties, nor in any sense "proper," because it is vitally subversive of the rights of the States.

The Government of the United States have no constitutional power to purchase lands within the States except "for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings," and even for these objects only "by the consent of the legislature of the State in which the same shall be." By making themselves stockholders in the bank and granting to the corporation the power to purchase lands for other purposes they assume a power not granted in the Constitution and grant to others what they do not themselves possess. It is not necessary to the receiving, safe-keeping, or transmission of the funds of the Government that the bank should possess this power, and it is not proper that Congress should thus enlarge the powers delegated to them in the Constitution.

The old Bank of the United States possessed a capital of only $11,000,000, which was found fully sufficient to enable it with dispatch and safety to perform all the functions required of it by the Government. The capital of the present bank is $35,000,000-at least twenty-four more than experience has proved to be necessary to enable a bank to perform its public functions. The public debt which existed during the period of the old bank and on the establishment of the new has been nearly paid off, and our revenue will soon be reduced. This increase of capital is therefore not for public but for private purposes.

The Government is the only "proper" judge where its agents should reside and keep their offices, because it best knows where their presence will be "necessary." It can not, therefore, be "necessary" or "proper" to authorize the bank to locate branches where it pleases to perform the public service, without consulting the Government, and contrary to its will. The principle laid down by the Supreme Court concedes that Congress can not establish a bank for purposes of private speculation and gain, but only as a means of executing the delegated powers of the General Government. By the same principle a branch bank can not constitutionally be established for other than public purposes. The power which this act gives to establish two branches in any State, without the injunction or request of the Government and for other than public purposes, is not "necessary" to the due execution of the powers delegated to Congress.

The bonus which is exacted from the bank is a confession upon the face of the act that the powers granted by it are greater than are "necessary" to its character of a fiscal agent. The Government does not tax its officers and agents for the privilege of serving it. The bonus of a million and a half required by the original charter and that of three millions proposed by this act are not exacted for the privilege of giving "the necessary facilities for transferring the public funds from place to place within the United States or the Territories thereof, and for distributing the same in payment of the public creditors without charging commission or claiming allowance on account of the difference of exchange," as required by the act of incorporation, but for something more beneficial to the stockholders. The original act declares that it (the bonus) is granted " in consideration of the exclusive privileges and benefits conferred by this act upon the said bank, " and the act before me declares it to be "in consideration of the exclusive benefits and privileges continued by this act to the said corporation for fifteen years, as aforesaid." It is therefore for "exclusive privileges and benefits" conferred for their own use and emolument, and not for the advantage of the Government, that a bonus is exacted. These surplus powers for which the bank is required to pay can not surely be "necessary" to make it the fiscal agent of the Treasury. If they were, the exaction of a bonus for them would not be " proper."

It is maintained by some that the bank is a means of executing the constitutional power "to coin money and regulate the value thereof." Congress have established a mint to coin money and passed laws to regulate the value thereof. The money so coined, with its value so regulated, and such foreign coins as Congress may adopt are the only currency known to the Constitution. But if they have other power to regulate the currency, it was conferred to be exercised by themselves, and not to be transferred to a corporation. If the bank be established for that purpose, with a charter unalterable without its consent, Congress have parted with their power for a term of years, during which the Constitution is a dead letter. It is neither necessary nor proper to transfer its legislative power to such a bank, and therefore unconstitutional.

By its silence, considered in connection with the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of McCulloch against the State of Maryland, this act takes from the States the power to tax a portion of the banking business carried on within their limits, in subversion of one of the strongest barriers which secured them against Federal encroachments. Banking, like farming, manufacturing, or any other occupation or profession, is a business, the right to follow which is not originally derived from the laws. Every citizen and every company of citizens in all of our States possessed the right until the State legislatures deemed it good policy to prohibit private banking by law. If the prohibitory State laws were now repealed, every citizen would again possess the right. The State banks are a qualified restoration of the right which has been taken away by the laws against banking, guarded by such provisions and limitations as in the opinion of the State legislatures the public interest requires. These corporations, unless there be an exemption in their charter, are, like private bankers and banking companies, subject to State taxation. The manner in which these taxes shall be laid depends wholly on legislative discretion. It may be upon the bank, upon the stock, upon the profits, or in any other mode which the sovereign power shall will.

Upon the formation of the Constitution the States guarded their taxing power with peculiar jealousy. They surrendered it only as it regards imports and exports. In relation to every other object within their jurisdiction, whether persons, property, business, or professions, it was secured in as ample a manner as it was before possessed. All persons, though United States officers, are liable to a poll tax by the States within which they reside. The lands of the United States are liable to the usual land tax, except in the new States, from whom agreements that they will not tax unsold lands are exacted when they are admitted into the Union. Horses, wagons, any beasts or vehicles, tools, or property belonging to private citizens, though employed in the service of the United States, are subject to State taxation. Every private business, whether carried on by an officer of the General Government or not, whether it be mixed with public concerns or not, even if it be carried on by the Government of the United States itself, separately or in partnership, falls within the scope of the taxing power of the State. Nothing comes more fully within it than banks and the business of banking, by whomsoever instituted and carried on. Over this whole subject-matter it is just as absolute, unlimited, and uncontrollable as if the Constitution had never been adopted, because in the formation of that instrument it was reserved without qualification.

The principle is conceded that the States can not rightfully tax the operations of the General Government. They can not tax the money of the Government deposited in the State banks, nor the agency of those banks in remitting it; but will any man maintain that their mere selection to perform this public service for the General Government would exempt the State banks and their ordinary business from State taxation? Had the United States, instead of establishing a bank at Philadelphia, employed a private banker to keep and transmit their funds, would it have deprived Pennsylvania of the right to tax his bank and his usual banking operations? It will not be pretended. Upon what principal, then, are the banking establishments of the Bank of the United States and their usual banking operations to be exempted from taxation ? It is not their public agency or the deposits of the Government which the States claim a right to tax, but their banks and their banking powers, instituted and exercised within State jurisdiction for their private emolument-those powers and privileges for which they pay a bonus, and which the States tax in their own banks. The exercise of these powers within a State, no matter by whom or under what authority, whether by private citizens in their original right, by corporate bodies created by the States, by foreigners or the agents of foreign governments located within their limits, forms a legitimate object of State taxation. From this and like sources, from the persons, property, and business that are found residing, located, or carried on under their jurisdiction, must the States, since the surrender of their right to raise a revenue from imports and exports, draw all the money necessary for the support of their governments and the maintenance of their independence. There is no more appropriate subject of taxation than banks, banking, and bank stocks, and none to which the States ought more pertinaciously to cling.

It can not be necessary to the character of the bank as a fiscal agent of the Government that its private business should be exempted from that taxation to which all the State banks are liable, nor can I conceive it "proper" that the substantive and most essential powers reserved by the States shall be thus attacked and annihilated as a means of executing the powers delegated to the General Government. It may be safely assumed that none of those sages who had an agency in forming or adopting our Constitution ever imagined that any portion of the taxing power of the States not prohibited to them nor delegated to Congress was to be swept away and annihilated as a means of executing certain powers delegated to Congress.

If our power over means is so absolute that the Supreme Court will not call in question the constitutionality of an act of Congress the subject of which "is not prohibited, and is really calculated to effect any of the objects intrusted to the Government," although, as in the case before me, it takes away powers expressly granted to Congress and rights scrupulously reserved to the States, it becomes us to proceed in our legislation with the utmost caution. Though not directly, our own powers and the rights of the States may be indirectly legislated away in the use of means to execute substantive powers. We may not enact that Congress shall not have the power of exclusive legislation over the District of Columbia, but we may pledge the faith of the United States that as a means of executing other powers it shall not be exercised for twenty years or forever. We may not pass an act prohibiting the States to tax the banking business carried on within their limits, but we may, as a means of executing our powers over other objects, place that business in the hands of our agents and then declare it exempt from State taxation in their hands. Thus may our own powers and the rights of the States, which we can not directly curtail or invade, be frittered away and extinguished in the use of means employed by us to execute other powers. That a bank of the United States, competent to all the duties which may be required by the Government, might be so organized as not to infringe on our own delegated powers or the reserved rights of the States I do not entertain a doubt. Had the Executive been called upon to furnish the project of such an institution, the duty would have been cheerfully performed. In the absence of such a call it was obviously proper that he should confine himself to pointing out those prominent features in the act presented which in his opinion make it incompatible with the Constitution and sound policy. A general discussion will now take place, eliciting new light and settling important principles; and a new Congress, elected in the midst of such discussion, and furnishing an equal representation of the people according to the last census, will bear to the Capitol the verdict of public opinion, and, I doubt not, bring this important question to a satisfactory result.

Under such circumstances the bank comes forward and asks a renewal of its charter for a term of fifteen years upon conditions which not only operate as a gratuity to the stockholders of many millions of dollars, but will sanction any abuses and legalize any encroachments.

Suspicions are entertained and charges are made of gross abuse and violation of its charter. An investigation unwillingly conceded and so restricted in time as necessarily to make it incomplete and unsatisfactory discloses enough to excite suspicion and alarm. In the practices of the principal bank partially unveiled, in the absence of important witnesses, and in numerous charges confidently made and as yet wholly uninvestigated there was enough to induce a majority of the committee of investigation-a committee which was selected from the most able and honorable members of the House of Representatives-to recommend a suspension of further action upon the bill and a prosecution of the inquiry. As the charter had yet four years to run, and as a renewal now was not necessary to the successful prosecution of its business, it was to have been expected that the bank itself, conscious of its purity and proud of its character, would have withdrawn its application for the present, and demanded the severest scrutiny into all its transactions. In their declining to do so there seems to be an additional reason why the functionaries of the Government should proceed with less haste and more caution in the rene\val of their monopoly.

The bank is professedly established as an agent of the executive branch of the Government, and its constitutionality is maintained on that ground. Neither upon the propriety of present action nor upon the provisions of this act was the Executive consulted. It has had no opportunity to say that it neither needs nor wants an agent clothed with such powers and favored by such exemptions. There is nothing in its legitimate functions which makes it necessary or proper. Whatever interest or influence, whether public or private, has given birth to this act, it can not be found either in the wishes or necessities of the executive department, by which present action is deemed premature, and the powers conferred upon its agent not only unnecessary, but dangerous to the Government and country.

It is to be regretted that the rich and powerful too often bend the acts of government to their selfish purposes. Distinctions in society will always exist under every just government. Equality of talents, of education, or of wealth can not be produced by human institutions. In the full enjoyment of the gifts of Heaven and the fruits of superior industry, economy, and virtue, every man is equally entitled to protection by law; but when the laws undertake to add to these natural and just advantages artificial distinctions, to grant titles, gratuities, and exclusive privileges, to make the rich richer and the potent more powerful, the humble members of society-the farmers, mechanics, and laborers-who have neither the time nor the means of securing like favors to themselves, have a right to complain of the injustice of their Government. There are no necessary evils in government. Its evils exist only in its abuses. If it would confine itself to equal protection, and, as Heaven does its rains, shower its favors alike on the high and the low, the rich and the poor, it would be an unqualified blessing. In the act before me there seems to be a wide and unnecessary departure from these just principles.

Nor is our Government to be maintained or our Union preserved by invasions of the rights and powers of the several States. In thus attempting to make our General Government strong we make it weak. Its true strength consists in leaving individuals and States as much as possible to themselves-in making itself felt, not in its power, but in its beneficence; not in its control, but in its protection; not in binding the States more closely to the center, but leaving each to move unobstructed in its proper orbit.

Experience should teach us wisdom. Most of the difficulties our Government now encounters and most of the dangers which impend over our Union have sprung from an abandonment of the legitimate objects of Government by our national legislation, and the adoption of such principles as are embodied in this act. Many of our rich men have not been content with equal protection and equal benefits, but have besought us to make them richer by act of Congress. By attempting to gratify their desires we have in the results of our legislation arrayed section against section, interest against interest, and man against man, in a fearful commotion which threatens to shake the foundations of our Union. It is time to pause in our career to review our principles, and if possible revive that devoted patriotism and spirit of compromise which distinguished the sages of the Revolution and the fathers of our Union. If we can not at once, in justice to interests vested under improvident legislation, make our Government what it ought to be, we can at least take a stand against all new grants of monopolies and exclusive privileges, against any prostitution of our Government to the advancement of the few at the expense of the many, and in favor of compromise and gradual reform in our code of laws and system of political economy.

I have now done my duty to my country. If sustained by my fellow citizens, I shall be grateful and happy; if not, I shall find in the motives which impel me ample grounds for contentment and peace. In the difficulties which surround us and the dangers which threaten our institutions there is cause for neither dismay nor alarm. For relief and deliverance let us firmly rely on that kind Providence which I am sure watches with peculiar care over the destinies of our Republic, and on the intelligence and wisdom of our countrymen. Through His abundant goodness and heir patriotic devotion our liberty and Union will be preserved.


Doc of 37...

About Fort Knox Gold:

In the 1970's a very courageous gentleman named Edward Durrell claimed that substantially all of the US Gold Reserve being stored at Ft. Knox was gone. Only 1,000 tonnes or so of the 8,500 tonnes supposedly being stored there remained. The rest had been secretly taken from Ft. Knox and shipped to London in 1967 and early 1968 for sale by President Johnson in an ill-fated attempt to keep the price of Gold at $35 per ounce.


First, about Fort Knox. You know, the Fort Knox Gold Scandal is just like the Watergate Scandal in one respect: There is a desperate cover-up going on right now just as happened with Watergate. The Fort Knox Gold Scandal cover-up really passed the point of no return last September when the United States Treasury perpetrated the Fort Knox gold inspection hoax in an attempt to discredit my charges that there's no gold in Fort Knox because it had all been illegally removed. Since that time the Government has been getting in deeper and deeper and deeper, involving more and more people in all sorts of maneuvers to try to keep the lid on. For example, when the Congressmen and newsmen visited Fort Knox last September, news stories promised everybody that the visit would be followed up by an audit of the Fort Knox gold by the General Accounting Office, but what they actually did was just a very superficial exercise just to make the record look good, and the group of 15 men that did it had only two (2) General Accounting Office representatives on it. All the rest were from the Treasury itself--in other words, the fox went into the henhouse to count our chickens for us.


It may come as a shock to some, but the U.S. has very little so-called "U.S. government" gold bullion in Fort Knox. A brave outspoken journalist, Tom Valentine, in the 1970s, exposed as a fraud that there was world-trade-quality gold at Fort Knox. All they have left are poor quality, orangish-looking, melted down coin metal from the seizure in 1934, of gold coins from America's common people. [The American aristocracy, warned in advance, shipped THEIR gold out of the U.S.] The U.S. governmentt gold is gone. Why? Because it was shipped, under the supervision of a ply-able U.S. General, to the private central octopus called the Bank of England, in 1968, to stem a run on that bank which had somehow lost all their own gold.]


The organization chaired by Alan Greenspan is a coalition of private international banks, that does not answer to the United States Government. And there is no precious metal warehoused in Fort Knox or elsewhere that backs the money that they issue.


Large shipment of gold leaves Fort Knox, public doesn't know that their national gold 'reserves' are being secretly depleted by one-world national socialist agents working in U.S. government. Gold at Fort Knox replaced with gold-plated lead bars, making it the biggest heist in history. Rockefellers involved. James MacDonald becomes critical of Air Force and the CIA.


Throughout the 20th century this movement toward a one world government has been marching on. This is not new or recent. In his book Critical Path Buckminster Fuller gives a very impressive sweep of the 20th century, about the large corporations and their agents and the lawyers who basically control the country far more than the people understand. He talked about how all the gold was removed from Fort Knox by the 1960's.

Where did it go? It went to the banks. They own the country. Fuller called the CIA, "capitalism's invisible army."

We have a Constitution and our Bill of Rights (the first 10 amendments) that makes us free. Right? Then visit:




Then take a look at these sites:




Return to Main Article or Main Page

Your use of this site is subject to
Terms and Conditions of Use
See also our
Privacy Policy
Click to subscribe to