Thank you for visiting SNEWPapers!
Sign up free
Editorial
January 13, 1817
The Alexandria Herald
Alexandria, Virginia
What is this article about?
The Alexandria Herald editorial criticizes the Virginia House of Delegates' bill incorporating 23 banks across the state, attributing it to local interests and warning of an excessive paper system that may lead to further petitions and public dissatisfaction, particularly over the neglect of Leesburg in Loudoun County for a bank location.
Clipping
OCR Quality
95%
Excellent
Full Text
ALEXANDRIA HERALD.
MONDAY MORNING
JANUARY 13, 1817
VIRGINIA BANKS.
Our readers will observe, from the proceedings of the Virginia Legislature, that a bill has passed the House of Delegates, for incorporating 23 banks within the Commonwealth. This measure, we imagine, has been produced by an union of interest from the different neighboring counties where these institutions are to be located. Although the creation of a few banks might have been useful in the state, we regret that the Legislature should have gone so extensively into a paper system, at this time: and we cannot but express our opinion that it would have been better to have remained as we were. We very much mistake if, with this bill before them, a petition will not be presented from every neglected county in the state, praying for a fair division of banking privileges!
We could not but observe the phraseology of the bill in the location of the bank for the county of Loudoun. We understand that an effort will be made to have it at Waterford, to the neglect of Leesburg--which is one of the most eligible places for a bank in the state The representatives have neglected the interests of their constituents, in not exercising their influence to have that place designated. Such wavering policy, and the large number to be incorporated, will dissatisfy the public, and probably defeat the bill in the senate.
MONDAY MORNING
JANUARY 13, 1817
VIRGINIA BANKS.
Our readers will observe, from the proceedings of the Virginia Legislature, that a bill has passed the House of Delegates, for incorporating 23 banks within the Commonwealth. This measure, we imagine, has been produced by an union of interest from the different neighboring counties where these institutions are to be located. Although the creation of a few banks might have been useful in the state, we regret that the Legislature should have gone so extensively into a paper system, at this time: and we cannot but express our opinion that it would have been better to have remained as we were. We very much mistake if, with this bill before them, a petition will not be presented from every neglected county in the state, praying for a fair division of banking privileges!
We could not but observe the phraseology of the bill in the location of the bank for the county of Loudoun. We understand that an effort will be made to have it at Waterford, to the neglect of Leesburg--which is one of the most eligible places for a bank in the state The representatives have neglected the interests of their constituents, in not exercising their influence to have that place designated. Such wavering policy, and the large number to be incorporated, will dissatisfy the public, and probably defeat the bill in the senate.
What sub-type of article is it?
Economic Policy
What keywords are associated?
Virginia Banks
Bank Incorporation
Paper System
Loudoun County
Leesburg
Waterford
Legislature Bill
What entities or persons were involved?
Virginia Legislature
House Of Delegates
Loudoun County
Waterford
Leesburg
Editorial Details
Primary Topic
Criticism Of Virginia Bank Incorporation Bill
Stance / Tone
Critical Of Extensive Banking Expansion
Key Figures
Virginia Legislature
House Of Delegates
Loudoun County
Waterford
Leesburg
Key Arguments
Bill Passed For 23 Banks Driven By Local County Interests
Regret Over Extensive Adoption Of Paper System
Better To Maintain Status Quo
Likely Petitions From Neglected Counties For Banking Privileges
Neglect Of Leesburg In Favor Of Waterford In Loudoun County
Representatives Failed Constituents' Interests
Policy May Dissatisfy Public And Defeat Bill In Senate