The Clerk read as follows: “The proposition to take from the national banks the right to count compound notes as a part of their legal reserve is creating alarm among bankers, who see in it the seeds of financial revulsion, the result of an arbitrary and violent change in the law. The withdrawal of the compound notes from the banks at maturity will force upon them a conservative pol icy, which cannot fail to be felt by their debtors, who must pay up as fast as the banks are obliged to contract !. the maturing of their interest bearing reserve. The following extract from a letter from the president of the 1st National Bank at NewYork, whose experience in currency and banking gives his opinions great weight, is entitled to the consideration of Congress: “‘I wish to enter my protest to Hoop the Honorable Mr. ER and others against amending the national bank law so that the banks cannot count in their reserve moneytheir compound interest notes. When they are due and payable they should not becounted as money; but to compel the banks to substitute gold or greenbacks for the compounds they hold any faster than they fall due will surely cause a severerevulsion in notthbeemaomnoenygmtahrekemt, inaonrdstuhfefe Government baitnseklsf willl necessarily violate the law a or fail, many of them, outrightr.’e”gards their reserve, Mr. BUNDY. I would before I got through, if I had not forgotten it, have referred to that feature of the bill known as Mr. Hoopert's bill. Permit me to say, in passing, that I have no sympathy with banks or bankers who are apprehensive of any such state of things. It is their business to provide against any such contingencies. I was going on to say and I am sorry that I have no moorings to which I can fasten for the purpose of making my speech, if you can call it such, connected I was going on to say that the legitimate effect of the processes now in operation, inaugurated by the SecyTreasury, and 2nd ed, I am sorry to say, by the Congress of the U.S., is to bring us down to the circulation of the national banks without any authority for the increase of that circulation, to wit, to $292,000,000, or less than we had during the terrible times of 1860 and 1861. I say that that state of things is inevitable. Inevitable, why? Why, because, as I before remarked, this excess which the Government derives from its sources of revenue is applied, not to the extinguishment of the interest bearing bonds of the government, but to the extinguishment of the noninterest bearing bonds to a great extent. Why retire the non-interest bearing notes? What reason is there for that? 400 millions of them at 6%. would produce $24,000,000 a year, which, under a peace establishment, would have been considered a large source of revenue for the purpose of carrying on the Government and paying its ordinary expenses; and yet it is proposed to retire all that class of public indebtedness, not as rap idly as the SecyTreasury asks, I admit, but as rapidly as he may do it under the law. Does that look like a good financial policy? Why was it inaugurated? Why is it. on with such pertinacity on the part of the Tead of the exchequer? Why, sir, without attributing any selfish motives in the matter, without supposing for a moment that he had any aspi. ration for the future with regard to himself, it would be a very pleasant thing for him to have it said in history that during his administration of the financial affairs of the country he had become its greatest financier. His object is to enforce the resumption of specie payments. Who wants the resumption of specie payments?