In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

183 Reprinted from Jared Sparks, The Life of Gouverneur Morris, with Selections from his Correspondence and Miscellaneous Papers (Boston: Gray & Bowen, 1832), 3:437–65. A draft is in the Gouverneur Morris Papers, Rare Book and Manuscript Library, Columbia University, item 838. 1. On the creation of and controversy over the Bank of North America, see Bray Hammond, Banks and Politics in America from the Revolution to the Civil War (Princeton : Princeton University Press, 1957), 48–64. 14 • Address to the Assembly of Pennsylvania on the Abolition of the Bank of North America (1785) Robert Morris’s 1781 appointment as superintendent of finance brought the beginnings of order to America’s finances. In May 1781, the Continental Congress approved Morris’s proposal for a national bank, and in December of that year Congress incorporated it as “the President and Company of the Bank of North America.”1 It was not clear, however, that Congress had the authority to issue a corporate charter, and as a result several states also issued charters. The Bank chose to organize itself under the charter issued by the Pennsylvania Assembly on April 1, 1782. But the charter had met with substantial opposition in the General Assembly, and by 1785 the Bank’s opponents felt strong enough to bring a proposal for its repeal. The bill was introduced April 4, 1785, and occasioned considerable debate both inside and outside the Assembly. Both Gouverneur and Robert Morris argued against the repeal. The Morrises saw the Bank as an essential tool in managing the country’s finances, as did Hamilton and as others would later. Their arguments were unsuccessful, however; the charter was repealed September 13, 1785. •• Gentlemen, Whether the Bank shall be abolished or established, is one of those important questions, which will in course attract your notice. The heat of disputation will then give birth to many arguments. But disputants do not always convey information. There is, no doubt, a great majority of mem- 184 chaPtEr 14 bers, who will vote according to their dispassionate judgment; and such men will naturally wish to form opinions on plain reasons plainly delivered .To them, therefore, this paper is addressed. And, in order that we may have a clear view of the object, let us consider, first, whether admitting the institution of the Bank to have been pernicious, a law to abolish it would be wise; and, secondly, whether it is really a pernicious institution. First, then, admitting the institution of the Bank to have been pernicious , would a law to abolish it be wise? The answer to this question depends on two points. First, whether such a law would be effectual; and secondly, whether it would be prudent. An inquiry whether the law would be effectual involves a doubt of your power, and may, therefore, offend the weak or illiberal, but wise representatives of free citizens will listen with candor and form a dispassionate judgment. They know that the boasted omnipotence of legislative authority is but a jingle of words. In the literal meaning it is impious. And whatever interpretation lawyers may give, freemen must feel it to be absurd and unconstitutional. Absurd, because laws cannot alter the nature of things; unconstitutional, because the Constitution is no more, if it can be changed by the Legislature. A law was once passed in New Jersey, which the judges pronounced to be unconstitutional, and therefore void. Surely no good citizen can wish to see this point decided in the tribunals of Pennsylvania. Such power in judges is dangerous; but unless it somewhere exists, the time employed in framing a bill of rights and form of government was merely thrown away. The doubt which arises on this occasion, as to the extent of your authority , is not founded on the charter granted by Congress; but supposing the incorporation of the Bank to have been the same in its origin as that of a church, we ask whether the existence and the rights acquired by law can be destroyed by law. Negroes have by law acquired the right of citizens; would a subsequent law take that right away? It is not true that the right to give involves the right to take. A father, for instance, has no power over the life of his child, nor can a felon or traitor, pardoned by act of grace, be by repeal of that act condemned and executed. Should an act be passed to cancel the public debts, would that act be valid? Where an estate...

Share