from Missouri to be "the law," and that the practice under it has been uniform to receive the notes of speciepaying banks. If, then, to authorize the reception of the notes of specie-paying banks in payment of the public dues be a violation of the constitution, it is obvious that the constitution never has had any existence, except in the golden visions of the honorable Senator from Missouri. Sir, what more is done by the bill reported from the Committee on Public Lands, and now ordered to be engrossed by the Senate, than had been already accomplished by the joint resolution of 1816? This bill, as thus engrossed, is as follows:

"An act designating and limiting the funds receivable

for the revenues of the United States.

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa. tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and here by is, required to adopt such measures as he may deem necessary to effect a collection of the public revenue of the United States, whether arising from duties, taxes, debts, or sales of lands, in the manner and on the principles herein provided: that is, that no such duties, taxes, debts, or sums of money, payable for lands, shall be collected or received otherwise than in the legal currency of the United States, or in notes of banks which are payable and paid on demand in the said legal currency of the United States, under the following restrictions and conditions in regard to such notes, to wit: from and after the passage of this act, the notes of no bank which shall issue or circulate bills or notes of a less denomination than five dollars shall be received on account of the public dues; and from and after the thirtieth day of December, eighteen hundred and thirtynine, the notes of no bank which shall issue or circulate bills or notes of a less denomination than ten dollars shall be so receivable; and from and after the thirtieth day of December, one thousand eight hundred and forty-one, the like prohibition shall be extended to the notes of all banks issuing bills or notes of a less denomination than twenty dollars.

"SEC. 2. And be it further enacted, That no notes shall be received by the collectors or receivers of the public money which the banks in which they are to be deposit ed shall not, under the supervision and control of the Secretary of the Treasury, agree to pass to the credit of the United States as cash: Provided, That if any deposite bank shall refuse to receive and pass to the credit of the United States, as cash, any notes receivable under the provisions of this act, which said bank, in the ordinary course of business, receives on general deposite, the Secretary of the Treasury is hereby authorized to withdraw the public deposites from said bank."

Now, the principal d fference between the provisions of this bill and the joint resolution of 1816 consists in the exclusion by the bill of notes of small denominations from revenue payments. Yet the Senator from Missouri would leave the resolution of 1816 in full force, unrepealed, unmodified, and yet objects to the measure now before us. The Senator from Missouri would bave remain in force a resolution of Congress, by which the Secretary of the Treasury may, at his discretion, receive for the public dues bank notes, even of one dollar; and yet he objects to a measure by which that discretion is limited to the receipt of notes of the higher denominations. By the resolution, as it stands, the Secretary of the Treasury may collect the whole public revenue in bank paper; by the bill, as proposed, a portion of the public dues must be collected in gold and silver; and yet the Senator from Missouri objects, and denounces the measure as a repeal of the constitution, by authorizing the payment of the public dues in bank paper, as if it were not authorized already by the joint resolution of

[JAN. 28, 1837.

1816, which, as regards the customs, is untouched even by the Treasury order. Strange inconsistency! singular delusion! But has it come to this: that Congress has surrendered an unlimited discretion, as regards the funds receivable for the public dues, into the hands of the Secretary of the Treasury, and must not now interfere? That, in the opinion of the Senator from Missouri, it is all right that the Secretary of the Treasury should possess the discretionary power of receiving or rejecting bank paper in payment of the public dues; of discrimina ting between different individuals and different branches of the public revenue; of putting up and putting down pose and define or limit that discretion is a violation of bank paper at his pleasure--but that for Congress to interthe constitution. That for the Secretary of the Treasury to regulate the currency at his pleasure, and put up and put down State banks and their paper, is all right; but that for Congress to limit and define his power, in these respects, is unconstitutional. The Secretary of the Treasury, then, must be above Congress, and above the constitution, possessing an omnipotent, unchangeable, irre. versible power on this subject. Is not the Senate astounded by the avowal and advocacy of such doctrines upon this floor--doctrines worthy of the Polignacs of France, and of the Stuarts of England, but wholly in compatible with the genius of our institutions, and directly contradictory, as shall be shown hereafter, to the opinions upon this subject of our patriotic President' Are the American people prepared to sustain these doctrines--doctrines which are essentially monarchical, which take from Congress all power over this subject; which deny their authority, the authority of the representatives of the people and of the States, and erect the Secretary of the Treasury into a dictator, whose mandates we may not control or alter? Sir, if the Secretary of the Treasury may thus abolish our power on this subject, and render it unconstitutional for us to interfere with his orders, why may not every other Secretary of every other Department claim similar power and the same exemption from our control? Such doctrines are the very essence of despotism, and now for the first time have they been openly avowed upon this floor and in this country. Tell me not, then, that the Secretary of the Treasury may receive or reject bank paper at his pleasure; may receive it, as he now does, for customs, and reject it in payment of the public lands; and that it is unconstitu tional for Congress to regulate, define, and limit, that discretion. Standing upon the broad basis of the constitution, he would resist such doctrines; for they can only be maintained by a total overthrow of free govern ment, and the establishment of arbitrary and despotic

power.

But the Senator from Missouri tells us that he objects to the bill of the committee as an act of Congress, when it should have been a resolution. Sir, does that Senator contend that in directions given by Congress to the Secretary of the Treasury, as regards the funds receiva ble for the public dues, there is any distinction between a be it enacted, and a be it resolved, by the Congress of the United States? The constitution prescribes no such form, and recognises no such distinction. It requires joint resolutions, except for adjournment, as well as laws, to be approved by the President; and when this is done, they have the same obligatory energy in limiting and directing the acts of our public agents. Sir, when the Senator from Missouri urged this new objec tion, he seemed to have forgotten his speech of Decem ber last, in which, when commenting upon the joint resolution of 1816, he declared this is the law;" but now that Senator would have us believe that a joint resolution is not equivalent to a law of Congress. But if there be this distinction between a law and a joint resolution, in support of this plea of abatement, upon

which the Senator from Missouri now relies, it shall be shown, before the close of this address, that the Senator from Missouri has himself, within the last twelve months, proposed laws, and amendments to laws, expressly authorizing the receipt of bank paper in payment of the public dues; and, consequently, if his own argument be true, has proposed a repeal of the constitution. Before, however, proceeding to this branch of the subject, let me ask, if the reception of bank paper in payment of the public dues be a violation of the constitution, then not only have Congress, but this administration, and every one that preceded it, uniformly violated the constitution. Down to the period of the Treasury order of July last, this administration has constantly received bank paper in payment of the federal revenue, and is still receiving it, even under the Treasury order, in payment of customs. The argument, then, of the Senator from Missouri, is a bitter denunciation of the whole course of the President on this subject preceding the Treasury order, and it is also a denunciation of the principles of that order, so far as it does not exclude bank paper in payment of customs. The administration is now receiving bank paper in payment of customs, and no change on this subject is proposed by the President; and yet the Senator from Missouri tells us, that for Congress to authorize the reception of bank paper in payment of the public dues is to repeal the constitution. Here is conclusive evidence that the Senator from Mis. souri goes far beyond the views of the President upon this subject. But the Senator from Missouri objects to the proviso of the bill introduced by the Committee on Public Lands, authorizing the Secretary of the Treasury to withdraw the deposites from any bank which refuses to pass to the credit of the United States, as cash, the notes of such specie-paying banks, receivable under this bill, as the bank receives on general deposite. This proviso is a wholesome restriction upon the abuse of power by the deposite banks. It will curtail, and was intended to curtail, the power of the deposite banks. It will arrest an odious monopoly, by preventing the deposite banks from making their notes the only paper receivable for the public dues; thus rendering, for all practical purposes, the paper of these banks the only currency of the Federal Government, to the manifest inconvenience of the people, and the severe oppression of other State banks equally as solvent as these institutions. It will prevent an oligarchy of deposite banks from controlling the currency, and exercising a power over the prosperity of the country quite as despotic as that possessed by the Bank of the United States. reject this proviso, we shall only have disenthralled the American people from the Bank of the United States; one master, to substitute eighty masters; a combination of which, uncontrolled by this proviso, might hold in their power the prosperity of this nation. This same power was confided, in relation to the removal of the deposites, to the Secretary of the Treasury, as regards the Bank of the United States; and the existence, as well as the exercise, of this power, by that officer, was deemed, by the Senator from Missouri, most wise and saluta ry. Yet the Senator from Missouri now objects to this power, and says he would not intrust it even to the administration of the President or of his successor. Indeed! The Senator from Missouri would not confide to the Secretary of the Treasury the necessary power to remove the public moneys from any deposite bank, thus abusing its authority, and oppressing the people, in the contingency referred to in the proviso; and yet he would permit the joint resolution of 1816 to remain unrepealed and unmodified, by which the Secretary of the Treasury might, at his discretion, regulate the whole currency of the country, receive or reject bank paper at his option, change and rechange his orders upon this subject, in

VOL. XIII.-40

If we

[SENATE.

troduce or exclude the currency of gold and silver, and exercise over this whole subject powers unregulated and uncontrolled. Sir, the Senator from Missouri stops at the molehill of this proviso, whilst he surmounts the mountain which rises to our view, upon a survey of the enormous powers which that Senator would intrust, without any regulation, into the hands of the Secretary of the Treasury.

Mr. W. said he would now proceed to prove that the Senator from Missouri had himself originally proposed something similar to the provisions of the bill which he now denounces as a violation of the constitution; and especially that he had directly proposed, by resolution as well as laws, to authorize the receipt of bank paper in payment of the public dues; and, until very recently, limited himself to the exclusion of notes under twenty dollars, as proposed by the bill of the committee. And, first, Mr. W. read from the journals of the Senate, under date of the 9th April, 1834, as follows:

"The following motion, submitted by Mr. Benton, was considered:

"Resolved, That a committee be appointed on the part of the Senate, jointly with such committee as may be appointed on the part of the House of Representa. tives, to consider and report to the Senate and to the House, respectively, what alterations, if any, are necessary to be made • ** 3. In the joint resolution of 1816, (for the better collection of the revenue,) so as to exclude all bank notes under twenty dollars from revenue payments after a given period, and to make the revenue system of the United States instrumental in the gradual suppression of the small-note circulation, and the introduction of gold and silver for the common currency of the country.'

Here it will be perceived that the Senator from Missouri then considered the joint resolution of 1816 aa requiring alterations by Congress, so as "to exclude all bank notes under twenty dollars from revenue payments after a given period." Here, then, was a direct proposition, by that Senator, to do precisely what is dene by the bill of the committee, as regards the exclusion from revenue payments of notes only "under twenty dollars." Why, then, does the Senator now denounce what was then his own project as a repeal of the constitution?

His project then was, not as it now is, to exclude all but gold and silver from revenue payments, and cut loose the Federal Government from the paper system, but the very reverse, namely: to authorize bank notes not under twenty dollars to be received in revenue payments. And how received? Why, by regulations then proposed by him, to be made by Congress-by alterations of the joint resolution of 1816. The honorable Senator then also proposed to make "the revenue system of the United States instrumental in the gradual suppression of the small-note circulation, and the introduction of gold and silver for the common currency of the coun try." The terms "common currency," as distinguished from exclusive currency, are italicized in the resolution of the Senator from Missouri, and the suppression confined to "the small-note circulation." This suppression of "the small-note circulation," of notes under twenty dollars, was to be effected by the instrumentality of the revenue system of the United States. Now, is not all this precisely what is proposed in the bill of the committee? And are not that bill and this resolution of the honorable Senator substantially the same? Since this period, a great revolution appears to have taken place in the opinion of the honorable Senator, both as regards questions relating to the currency and to constitutional law. Then, that Senator was satisfied to encourage the circulation of bank notes not under twenty dollars, and

to receive them in revenue payments. Now, nothing will answer his purpose but gold and silver; and, to authorize any thing else to be received in revenue payments is denounced as a repeal of the constitution! If this doctrine be true, then the Senator from Missouri stands upon the Senate journals self-convicted of an attempt to repeal the constitution.

But the Senator from Missouri has imbodied the twenty dollar principle, as connected with the federal revenue, in an act of Congress, not a resolution.

Mr. W. here read from the journals of the Senate, under date of the 6th of April, 1836, as follows:

"The Senate resumed the consideration of a bill entitled An act making appropriations for the payment of the revolutionary and other pensioners,' &c. The following amendment, proposed by Mr. Benton, being under consideration:

SEC.. And be it further enacted, That no bank note of less denomination than twenty dollars shall hereafter be offered in payment, in any case whatsoever, in which money is to be paid by the United States or the Post Of. fice Department; nor shall any bank note of any denomination be so offered, unless the same shall be payable and paid on demand, in gold or silver coin, at the place where issued, and which shall not be equivalent to specie at the place where offered, and convertible into gold or silver upon the spot, at the will of the holder, and without delay or loss to him."

This section was, on the motion of the Senator from Missouri, imbodied in the act of Congress referred to, and is now the law of the land, having passed both Houses of Congress, and received the sanction of the President. This provision, it is true, is confined to payments by the United States. But if the United States, under this law, are to pay out bank notes not under twenty dollars, how can this be done if they are not authorized to receive such notes? What could be more contradictory than a bill, the first section of which should authorize notes not under twenty dollars to be paid by the United States, and the second section of which should prohibit the United States from receiving in payment any thing but gold and silver? How could the United States, by law, in all time to come, pay out that which by law they were debarred from receiving? The Senator from Missouri, then, has, by law, connected the Federal Government with the paper system. This section, adopted on the motion of the Senator from Missouri, would come in very properly as an additional clause in the bill now before but as an additional proviso to the bill, which shall be quoted hereafter, proposed by that Senator, to re-establish a currency of gold and silver for the Federal Government, it would be ridiculous and contradictory.

us;

Mr. W. stated that the Senator from Missouri had still further committed himself on this subject. He had not only directly countenanced the payment of the federal revenue in bank notes, but had himself proposed, at the last session, the creation by Congress, in this District, of new banks, authorized to issue notes not less than twenty dol lars. Mr. W. here read from the journals of the Senate, under date of the 4th June, 1836, as follows:

"The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill to

extend the charters of certain banks in the District of

Columbia.

"On motion of Mr. Benton to recommit the bill, with instructions to report separate bills for the incorporation of new banks, with small capitals, adapted to the capacity of the District to sustain specie banks, and strictly limited to the business of the place; the said incorporations to contain, among other provisions, the fol lowing principles: 4. The banks to issue no notes of less denomination than twenty dollars; and all notes of less denomination than twenty dollars, by other banks, to be prohibited from circulation within the District. 5. All

(JAN. 28, 1837.

the notes and paper currency issued by said banks to be paid in gold and silver; one half of either at the option of the demander, the other half at the option of the bank."

Now, Mr. W. would ask, if Congress could by law es. tablish even in this District a certain number of banks authorized to issue notes of a certain denomination, could it not exercise the smaller power of authorizing the reception of bank notes in revenue payments? But (Mr. W. said) he quoted this to show that even at this late period the Senator from Missouri was not prepared to do execution on all banks and all bank paper. There were some curious matters connected with these propositions of the Senator from Missouri. His fifth proposition required "all notes and paper currency issued by said banks to be paid in gold and silver; one half of either at the option of the demander, the other half at the option of the bank," and this same provision the honorable Senator also proposed to apply to "the deposite banks," "in consideration of being made or continued depositories of the public moneys" Sir, the honorable Senator from Missouri would have the banks pay in a currency better than that required by the constitution. By that instrument, gold or silver is a legal tender in payment of debts, and a bank note is only an evidence of a debt due by the bank to the holder of the note; but the honorable Senator would require the banks to pay their notes in gold and silver, one half of each metal. When a note of a thousand dollars shall be presented to a bank for redemption in specie, it is hoped the honorable Senator will not require those of less personal prowess than himself to carry away five hundred dollars in silver, when the bank otherwise might pay the whole amount in gold. Such equal division of the precious metals, however beautiful in theory, would be most inconvenient in practice; and if the honorable Senator is so equally attached to gold and silver as to be resolved on having a precisely equal circulation of each, there is one way which, if it were not presumptuous, Mr. W. could recommend to his serious consideration. It was this. That Senator took great delight in exhibiting a new and favor ite coin of his, which he called billon. Mr. W. hoped he pronounced the word correctly; he was sure the Senator from Missouri did. This coin was composed partly of copper, and partly of silver, though not peecisely one half of each; the Senator having suffered great injustice to be done to the silver, by permitting a great preponder. ance of copper, a very inferior metal, not recognised by the constitution as a tender. Now, Mr. W. would suggest, that if the Senator from Missouri would have coined a new species of billon, composed of gold and silver, precisely one half of each in value, would it not answer bis purpose? Mr. W. would not warrant that it would answer, but would only suggest it to the consideration of the Senator from Missouri, as a substitute for his pro posed entire equalisation of the circulation of gold and silver, by compelling the banks to redeem their notes in one half of cach metal, especially as these banks might not find it very convenient to comply with these requi sitions, and as a greater quantity of one metal than of the other might find its way, from time to time, out of the country, and thus destroy this metallic equilibrium of

the honorable Senator.

Thus far the Senator from Missouri seemed to have confined his views to the exclusion of notes under twenty dollars in revenue payments. But, on the 10th of June last, he changed his position, and introduced into the Senate the following bill:

“A bill to re-establish the currency of the constitution for the Federal Government.

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representalives of the United States of America in Congress

assem