Back Next Who's Who Home

After the delivery of the President’s Message to Congress, the questions referring to the Bank were sent to the Ways and Means Committee of the House of Representatives to evaluate. When the committee examined the speech they couldn’t agree with the President. The Committee led by George McDuffie of South Carolina declared that the President’s statements about the Bank made no sense. In his report (see congressional report) he made note that during the thirty-three out of forty years when there was some form of national bank that the country’s public and private credit had been maintained to an unequal stability. The report expressed that the paper currency in some parts of the country was at the time more valuable then specie. McDuffie, who was a bullionist by thought, was a realist and realized that a country that only used metallic currency was severally limited. He mentioned the Bank’s regulatory practices over the state banks to keep their money honest and without that the country might revert to the bank practices before the war. The committee was also unanimous on the government bank. The Bank, they thought, was not only impracticable, but also it was believed to be unnecessary. When the Ways and Means committee came to the paragraph concerning the alternative bank they could hardly take Jackson seriously. The president presented no clear plan for a new bank nor did he recommend one to Congress. Usually it was the Secretary of the Treasury’s report to Congress, which should be the vehicle for such proposals. But in Secretary Ingham’s report, never once was there mention of the Second Bank or Jackson’s criticism of it. The Committee believed that the BUS had effectively provided the Government perfectly to all matters of finance and state and rejected the motion. They did; however, comment on Jackson’s "disinterested patriotism" and "exalted character."