Mr. JOHNSON. No, sir; or rather concurred in the way I am about to state. The bank therefore had a remedy, a clear remedy, provided she had a case, and she had a clear case, if the President had no authority to force a removal of the deposits by the Sec. retary. She might have refused to pay over the deposits, and that would have brought the question immediately before the tribunals. There was no military law in force then, and the only way in which the moneys could have been recovered from the bank by the Government would have been by a suit, and if there was under the charter a contract between the bank and the Government which entitled the bank to hold on to the deposits until they were removed under the authority conferred upon the SecyTreasury, it would have been a complete defense to the removal which was actually ordered, provided it was true, and had been so adjudged, that the President had no control over the deposits; but the bank acquiesced, and I have every reason to believe that they took counsel of the ablest lawyers in the country. The President removed the SecyTreasury during the recess, and he appointed his then AttyGen. It is due to the memory of that officer, who afterward became, as we know, the Chief Justice of the U.S., to say and what I am about to state I state from personal.he agreed to accept the appointment of SecyTreasury upon General Jackson's appeal, founded upon the fact, which must have had very persuasive, and had not only persuasive but controlling operation upon the mind of the then AttyGen, that in ordering the deposits to be removed the President had the advice of the AttyGen as to the question of power, and having acted under the opinion of his law officer, and having some dif: ficulty in finding any successor to Mr. Duane upon whom he could rely to accomplish the object that he had so much at heart the removal of the deposits and the death of the bank, which he anticipated correctly would be the result of that removal he appealed to the AttyGen to take the situation, and he took it and ordered the removal of the depos its. He was nominated to the Senate and rejected; and if I had been in the Senate I should have voted to reject him, not upon the ground of any incapacity of that gentleman to fill the office, but upon the ground that, according to the " held at that time and still hold, the POTUS was guilty in that instance of a usurpation, of a violation of what I believed to be a contract between the Government and the bank in ordering himself his SecyTreasury to remove the deposits, and having removed him because he failed to comply with the order, appointing anyone to carry that out, or to act upon his own opinion of the propriety of that removal. It is due also to the Secretary to say I mean him who became the successor of Mr. Duane that he was satisfied at the time that the deposits in the Bank of the U.S. were in great danger. Whether he was right in that apprehension or not it is immaterial to inquire. Apparently, ostensibly what occurred afterward would show that he was right, because the bank became hopelessly insolvent. Whether she would have been insolvent and the deposits have been in any danger or have been lost if they had not been removed, is a question about which there may be difference of opinion. But notwithstanding that very strong case, and I cannot imagine a stronger one, every Senator who spoke upon the nominations of the successor of Mr. Duane did not place the rejection of that successor upon the ground that Duane was still the SecyTreasury; they all conceded that he was out; they acted in rejecting Mr. Taney upon the ground that in their opinion it wasjo. in him to take the place for the purpose of carrying out what they believed to be the improper action of the President.