U.S. Deposits
The Unionist 1833-09-05
Unionist content
Transcription
U.S. Deposits. —A writer in the Boston Daily Advertiser, who is evidently familiar with banking operations, shows by mathematical demonstration, that “The Government deposits, cannot be removed from the Bank of the United States, because there is no local Bank strong enough to take them, burthened as such a duty is with the obligation, on the part of such local Bank, to receive the bills of all the branches of the Bank of the United States and to pay out Gold and Silver, for the checks of the Government.” It is also stated that the proposed removal is illegal, and not within the power of the Executive.
The New York Commercial Advertiser contains the following paragraph:—
“Of one thing we feel very strongly assured, and we wish well what we say. No matter what terms or conditions are offered by the local banks— the deposits will not be removed. And further: No matter for the sentiments or the vetoes of the President, the Charter of the Bank will one day be renewed.”
About this Item
The political and economic crisis that preoccupied Andrew Jackson's second term as President was the controversy over the charter of The Bank of the United States. The Unionist predictably stood by the Bank against President Jackson, a perspective that was amplified when William Burleigh joined the editorial team by the end of 1833.
Item Details
See Full Metadata Hide Full MetadataBank Of The United States
