around the Bank, it only curtailed just as much as it lost by the act of the Government. The Bank would be justified, even without the withdrawal of the deposits, in curtailing its discounts gradually, and continuing to do so to the end of its charter, considering the hostility manifested to its further continuance. The Government has refused to recharter it. Its term of existence is approaching: one of the duties which it has to perform is to make its collections; and the process of collection, since it must be slow, ought to be commenced in season. It is, therefore, its duty to begin its curtailments, so as that the process may be gradual.

I hope that I have not been misunderstood in my remarks the other morning. The gentleman from New York has represented me as saying that it is not the removal of the deposits which has caused the public distress. What I said was, that, if the Government had required twice nine millions for its service, the withdrawal of that amount from the Bank, without any interruption of the good understanding between the Government and the Bank, would not have caused this pressure and distrust. Every thing turns on the circumstances under which the withdrawal is made. If public confidence is not shaken, all is well; but, if it is, all— all is difficulty and distress. And this confidence is shaken.

It has been said by the gentleman from New York, that Government has no design against the Bank; that it only desires to withdraw the public deposits. Yet, in the very paper submitted to Congress by the Executive Department, the Bank is arraigned as unconstitutional in its very origin, and also as having broken its charter, and violated its obligations and its very existence is said to be dangerous to the country! Is not all this calculated to injure the character of the Bank, and to shake confidence? The Bank has its foreign connections, and is much engaged in the business of foreign exchanges; and what will be thought at Paris and London, when the community there shall see all these charges made by the Government against a bank in which they have always reposed the highest trust? Does not this injure its reputation? Does it not compel it to take a defensive attitude? The gentleman from New York spoke of the power in the country to put down the Bank, and of doing as our fathers did in the time of the revolution, and has called on the people to rise and put down this money power, as our ancestors put down the oppressive rule of Great Britain! All this is well calculated to produce the effect which is intended; and all this, too, helps further to shake confidence-it all injures the Bank-it all compels it to curtail more and more.

Sir, I venture to predict that the longer gentlemen pursue the experiment which they have devised, of collecting the public revenue by State banks, the more perfectly will they be satisfied

that it cannot succeed. The gentleman has suffered himself to be led away by false analogies. He says, that when the present Bank expires, there will be the same laws as existed when the old bank expired. Now, would it not be the inference of every wise man, that there will also be the same inconveniences as were then felt? It would be useful to remember the state of things which existed when the first bank was created, in 1791; and that a high degree of convenience, which amounted to political necessity, compelled Congress thus early to create a national bank. Its charter expired in 1811, and the war came on the next year. The State banks immediately stopped payment; and, before the war had continued twelve months, there was a proposition for another United States bank; and this proposal was renewed from year to year, and from session to session. Who supported this proposition? The very individuals who had opposed the former bank, and who had now become convinced of the indispensable necessity of such an institution. It has been verified, by experience, that the Bank is as necessary in time of peace as in time of war; and perhaps more necessary, for the purpose of facilitating the commercial operations of the country, and collecting the revenue, and sustaining the currency. It has been alleged, that we are to be left in the same condition as when the old bank expired, and, of course, we are to be subjected to the same inconveniences. Sir, why should we thus suffer all experience to be lost upon us? For the convenience of the Government and of the country, there must be some bank (at least I think so); and I should wish to hear the views of the Administration as to this point.

The notes and bills of the Bank of the United States have heretofore been circulated every where-they meet the wants of every one-they have furnished a safe and most convenient currency. It is impossible for Congress to enact a certain value on the paper of the State banks. They may say that these banks are entitled to credit; but they cannot legislate them into the good opinion and faith of the public. Credit is a thing which must take its own course. It can never happen that the New York notes will be at par value in Louisiana, or that the notes of the Louisiana banks will be at par value in New York. In the notes of the United States Bank we have a currency of equal value every where; and I say that there is not to be found, in the whole world, another institution whose notes spread so far and wide, with perfect credit in all places. There is no instance of a bank whose paper is spread over so vast a surface of country, and is every where of such equal value. How can it be, that a number of State banks, scattered over two thousand miles of country, subject to twenty-four different State Legislatures and State tribunals, without the possibility of any general concert of

action, can supply the place of one general bank? It cannot be. I see, Sir, in the doctrines which have been advanced to-day, only new distress and disaster, new insecurity, and more danger to property than the country has experienced for many years; because it is in vain to attempt to uphold the occupations of industry, unless property is made secure; or of the value of labor, unless its recompense is safe. But an opportunity will occur for resuming this subject hereafter. I forbear from it for the present.

A word or two on one other point. It was said by me, on a former day, that this immediate question of the deposits does not necessarily draw after it the question of rechartering the Bank of the United States. It leaves that question for future adjustment. But the present question involves high political considerations, which I am not now about to discuss. If the question of the removal of the deposits be not now taken into view, gentlemen will be bound to vote on the resolutions of the Senator from Kentucky, as to the power which has been claimed and exercised. The question, then, is not as to the renewing of the charter of the Bank. But I repeat, that, however gentlemen may flatter themselves, if it be not settled that the deposits are to be restored, nothing will be settled; negative resolutions will not tranquillize the country and give it repose. The question is before the country-all agree that it must be settled by that country. I very much regret that topics are mixed up with the question which may prevent it from being submitted to the calm judgment of the people. Yet I have not lost faith in public sentiment. Events are occurring, daily, which will make the people think for themselves. The industrious, the enterprising, will see the danger which surrounds them, and will awake. If the majority of the people shall then say there is no necessity for a continuance of this sound and universal currency, I will acquiesce in their judgment, because I can do no otherwise than to acquiesce. If the gentleman from New York is right in his reading of the prognostics, and public opinion shall settle down in the way which he desires; and if it be determined here that the public money is to be placed at the disposal of the Executive, with absolute power over the whole subject of its custody and guardianship; and that the general currency is to be left to the control of banks created by twenty-four States;-then, I say, that, in my judgment, one strong bond of our social and political Union is severed, and one great pillar of our prosperity is broken and prostrate.

[Mr. TALLMADGE, of New York, spoke in reply to Mr. WEBSTER, and denied the Constitutional power of Congress to create a bank, although he maintained the power of the Secretary to make use of the State banks.]

The subject being resumed the next day, January 31,

Mr. WEBSTER said: It is not to be denied, Sir, that the financial affairs of the country have come, at last, to such a state, that every man can see plainly the question which is presented for the decision of Congress. We have, unquestionably, before us, now, the views of the Executive, as to the nature and extent of the evils alleged to exist; and its notions, also, as to the proper remedy for such evils. That remedy is short. It is, simply, the system of administration already adopted by the Secretary of the Treasury, and which is nothing but this-that, whenever he shall think proper to remove the public moneys from the Bank of the United States, and place them wherever else he pleases, this act shall stand as the settled policy and system of the country; and this system shall rest upon the authority of the Executive alone. This is now to be our future policy, as I understand the grave, significant import of the remarks made yesterday by the gentleman from New York, and as I perceive they are generally understood, and as they are evidently understood by the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. POINDEXTER], who has alluded to them on presenting his resolutions this morning. I wish, Sir, to take this, the earliest opportunity, of stating my opinions upon this subject; and that opinion is, that the remedy proposed by the Administration for the evils under which the country is at this time suffering, cannot bring relief, will not give satisfaction, and cannot be acquiesced in. I think the country, on the other hand, will show much dissatisfaction; and that from no motive of hostility to the Government, from no disposition to make the currency of the country turn upon political events, or to make political events turn upon the question of the currency; but simply because, in my judgment, the system is radically defective-totally insufficient-carrying with it little confidence of the public, and none at all more than it acquires merely by the influence of the name which recommends it.

I do not intend now, Mr. President, to go into a regular and formal argument to prove the Constitutional power of Congress to establish a national bank. That question has been argued a hundred times, and always settled the same way. The whole history of the country, for almost forty years, proves that such a power has been believed to exist. All previous Congresses, or nearly all, have admitted or sanctioned it; the judicial tribunals, Federal and State, have sanctioned it. The Supreme Court of the United States has declared the Constitutionality of the present Bank, after the most solemn argument, without a dissenting voice on the bench.

Every successive President has, tacitly or expressly, admitted the power. The present President has done this: he has informed Congress that he could furnish the plan of a bank which should conform to the Constitution. In objecting to the recharter of the present Bank, he objected for particular reasons: and he has said that a bank of the United States would be useful and convenient for the people.

All this authority, I think, ought to settle the question. Both the members from New York, however, are still unsatisfied: they both deny the power of Congress to establish a bank. Now, Sir, I shall not argue the question at this time; but I will repeat what I said yesterday. It does appear to me, that the late measures of the Administration prove incontestably, and by a very short course of reasoning, the Constitutionality of a bank. What I said yesterday, and what I say to-day, is, that, since the Secretary, and all who agree with the Secretary, admit the necessity of the agency of some bank to carry on the affairs of Government, I was at a loss to see where they could find power to use a State bank, and yet find no power to create a bank of the United States. The gentleman's perception may be sharp enough to see a distinction between these two cases; but it is too minute for my grasp. It is not said, in terms, in the Constitution, that Congress may create a bank; nor is it said, in terms, that Congress may use a bank created by a State. How, then, does it get authority to do either? No otherwise, certainly, than that it possesses power to pass all laws necessary and proper for carrying its enumerated powers into effect. If a law were now before us for confirming the arrangement of the Secretary, and adopting twenty State banks into the service of the United States, as fiscal agents of the Government, where would the honorable gentleman find authority for passing such a law? No where but in that clause of the Constitution to which I have referred; that is to say, the clause which authorizes congress to pass all laws necessary and proper for carrying its granted powers into effect. If such a law were before us, and the honorable member proposed to vote for it, he would be obliged to prove that the agency of a bank is a thing both necessary and proper for carrying on the Government. If he could not make this out, the law would be unconstitutional. We see the Secretary admits the necessity of this bank agency: the gentleman himself admits it, nay, contends for it. A bank agency is his main reliance. All the hopes expressed by himself or his colleague, of being able to get on with the present state of things, rest on the expected efficiency of a bank agency.

A bank, then, or some bank, being admitted to be both necessary and proper for carrying on the Government, and the Secretary proposing, on that very ground, and no other, to employ the State