The Daily Cincinnati Republican, And Commercial Register

Gov. Clay, in his late message to the Legislature of Alabama, expresses the following decided opinion against the policy of permitting the establishment of a Branch of the United States Bank in that State.—Lou. Adv.

It cannot have escaped your observation, that the Legislature of Pennsylvania, at their last session, passed an act granting a new charter to the stockholders of the late Bank of the United States, with a capital of thirty-five millions of dollars, to continue under the same name, for the term of thirty years. Whatever may be our individual opinions as to the manner in which the charter may have been obtained, or the effect it may have elsewhere, it is not our province to say. With the policy or expediency of this measure, we have nothing to do; they belong exclusively to the people of a sister State.

But there is a question connected with the management of this institution, of deep, and, in a financial point of view, of vital interest to our State. I allude to the establishment of a Branch, or Agency, within our limits.

In my opinion, it would be unwise in us to suffer any Banking Institution, of any other State or Government, to send a Branch into our State. We are fully competent to the management of our own affairs, in this department. We have our own Banks, either owned exclusively by the State or her own citizens; and whatever profits arise from their operations, go into our treasury for the public benefit, or return to the pockets of our own people. It is only necessary to know the amount of foreign capital employed here in this business; and the rate of discount, to enable us to estimate the amount which would be abstracted annually from the increasing wealth of the State. It is usual, too nay almost universally the case—that Banks pay a bonus for the extraordinary privileges which they exercise; yet, in the event supposed, we should not have even this poor return:

If a branch established in the usual mode, would be objectionable, how much more so would be an agency? A branch might be expected to have a Board of Directors, composed of our own citizens known to us, and having some interest in common, and some sympathy with us. But an agency would be without this feeble guaranty, and would be utterly irresponsible to those, over whose rights and interests it might, and doubtless would, wield a most powerful influence. Indeed, I regard an agency of the kind contemplated, as nothing else than a branch in disguise—a branch without any of the usual restraints; and in the worst form it could be introduced amongst us. The bills put in circulation by it would not be redeemable here, but in Philadelphia, whilst, with the aid of the immense capital of the bank, it could, and it may be reasonably expected, would, embarrass and cripple our State institutions, and injure, our commercial and agricultural interests. We have witnessed the facility and recklessness with which the Bank of the United States, under its late charter, could expand and contract its accommodations, without regard to the interest or security of its customers, at distant branches. Can we hope for a more liberal, or just policy, when it may carry on its operations through an individual agent?

In regard to the utility of an agency, in equalizing exchanges—which is the chief ground on which its establishment is sought to be maintained—I think experience shows it to be, at least, a mere delusion. It is believed exchange has never been more uniform, more easily obtained, or on better terms, than since we ceased to rely on the Bank of the United States. I do not doubt the power of the Legislature to enact laws, having the effect to prohibit the establishment of such an agency in our State: and have no hesitancy in recommending the justice and expediency of such a measure.