hough the charter was approaching its termination, and the bank was
aware that it was the intention of the Government to use the public
deposit as fast as it has accrued in the payment of the public debt,
yet did it extend its loans from January, 1831, to May, 1832, from
$42,402,304.24 to $70,428,070.72, being an increase of $28,025,766.48
in sixteen months. It is confidently believed that the leading object of
this immense extension of its loans was to bring as large a portion of
the people as possible under its power and influence, and it has been
disclosed that some of the largest sums were granted on very unusual
terms to the conductors of the public press. In some of these cases the
motive was made manifest by the nominal or insufficient security taken
for the loans, by the large amounts discounted, by the extraordinary
time allowed for payment, and especially by the subsequent conduct of
those receiving the accommodations.

Having taken these preliminary steps to obtain control over public
opinion, the bank came into Congress and asked a new charter. The object
avowed by many of the advocates of the bank was _to put the President
to the test_, that the country might know his final determination
relative to the bank prior to the ensuing election. Many documents and
articles were printed and circulated at the expense of the bank to bring
the people to a favorable decision upon its pretensions. Those whom the
bank appears to have made its debtors for the special occasion were
warned of the ruin which awaited them should the President be sustained,
and attempts were made to alarm the whole people by painting the
depression in the price of property and produce and the general loss,
inconvenience, and distress which it was represented would immediately
follow the reelection of the President in opposition to the bank.

Can it now be said that the question of a recharter of the bank was not
decided at the election which ensued? Had the veto been equivocal, or
had it not covered the whole ground; if it had merely taken exceptions
to the details of the bill or to the time of its passage; if it had not
met the whole ground of constitutionality and expediency, then there
might have been some plausibility for the allegation that the question
was not decided by the people. It was to compel the President to take
his stand that the question was brought forward at that particular
time. He met the challenge, willingly took the posi