Imagens das páginas
PDF
ePub

banks, how does he make out a distinction between passing a law for using a necessary agent, already created, and a law for creating a similar agent, to be used, when created, for the same purpose? If there be any distinction, as it seems to me, it is rather in favor of creating a bank by the authority of Congress, with such powers, and no others, as the service expected from it requires, answerable to Congress, and always under the control of Congress, than of employing, as our agents, banks created by other governments, for other purposes, and over which this Government has no control.

But, Sir, whichever power is exercised, both spring from the same source; and the power to establish a bank, on the ground that its agency is necessary and proper for the ends and uses of Government, is at least as plainly Constitutional as the power to adopt banks, for the same uses and objects, which are already made by other governments. Indeed, the legal act is, in both cases, the same. When Congress makes a bank, it creates an agency; when it adopts a State bank, it creates an agency. If there be power for one, therefore, there is power for the other. No power to create a corporation is expressly given to Congress; nor is Congress any where forbidden to create a corporation. The creation of a corporation is an act of law, and, when it passes, the only question is, whether it be a necessary and proper law for carrying on the Government advantageously. And the case will be precisely the same when we shall be asked to pass a law for confirming the Secretary's arrangement with State banks. Each is Constitutional, if Congress may fairly regard it as a necessary measure.

The honorable member, Sir, quoted me as having said that I regarded the Bank as one of the greatest bonds of the union of the States. That is not exactly what I said. What I did say was, that the Constitutional power vested in Congress over the legal currency of the country was one of its very highest powers, and that the exercise of this high power was one of the strongest bonds of the union of the States. And this I say still. Sir, the gentleman did not go to the Constitution. He did not tell us how he understands it, or how he proposes to execute the great trust which it devolves on Congress, in respect to the circulating medium. I can only say, Sir, how I understand it.

And

The Constitution declares that Congress shall have power "to coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin. it also declares that "no State shall coin money, emit bills of credit, or make any thing but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts." Congress, then, and Congress only, can coin money, and regulate the value thereof. Now, Sir, I take it to be a truth, which has grown into an admitted maxim with all the best writers, and the best-informed public men, that those whose duty it is to protect the community against the evils of a debased coin, are

bound also to protect it against the still greater evils of excessive issues of paper.

If the public require protection, says Mr. Ricardo, against bad money, which might be imposed on them by an undue mixture of alloy, how much more necessary is such protection, when paper money forms almost the whole of the circulating medium of the country!

It is not to be doubted, Sir, that the Constitution intended that Congress should exercise a regulating power-a power both neces sary and salutary, over that which should constitute the actual money of the country, whether that money were coin, or the representative of coin. So it has always been considered: so Mr. Madison considered it, as may be seen in his message, December, 1816. He there says:

"Upon this general view of the subject, it is obvious that there is only wanting to the fiscal prosperity of the Government the restoration of a uniform medium of exchange. The resources and the faith of the nation, displayed in the system which Congress has established, ensure respect and confidence both at home and abroad. The local accumulations of the revenue have already enabled the Treasury to meet the public engagements in the local currency of most of the States; and it is expected that the same cause will produce the same effect throughout the Union. But for the interests of the community at large, as well as for the purposes of the Treasury, it is essential that the nation should possess a currency of equal value, credit, and use, wherever it may circulate. The Constitution has intrusted Congress exclusively with the power of creating and regulating a currency of that description; and the measures which were taken during the last session, in execution of the power, give every promise of success. The Bank of the United States has been organized under auspices the most favorable, and cannot fail to be an important auxiliary to those measures."

The State banks put forth paper as representing coin. As such representative, it obtains circulation; it becomes the money of the country; but its amount depends on the will of four hundred different State banks, each acting on its own discretion; and in the absence of every thing preventive or corrective, on the part of the United States, what security is there against excessive issues, and, consequently, against depreciation? The public feels that there is no security against these evils; it has learned this from experience; and this very feeling, this distrust of the paper of State banks, is the very evil which they themselves have to encounter; and it is a very serious evil. They know that confidence in them is far

greater when there exists a power elsewhere to prevent excess and depreciation. Such a power, therefore. is friendly to their best interests. It gives confidence and credit to them, one and all. Hence a vast majority of the State banks--nearly all, perhaps, except those who expect to be objects of particular favor-desire the continuance of a national bank, as an institution highly useful to themselves.

The mode in which the operations of a national institution afford security against excessive issues by local banks, is not violent, coercive, or injurious. On the contrary, it is gentle, salutary, and friendly. The result is brought about by the natural and easy operation of things. The money of the Bank of the United States, having a more wide-spread credit and character, is constantly wanted for purposes of remittance. It is purchased, therefore, for this purpose, and paid for in the bills of local banks; and it may be purchased, of course, at par, or near it, if these local bills are offered in the neighborhood of their own banks, and these banks are in good credit. These local bills then return to the bank that issued them. The result is, that, while the local bills will or may supply, in great part, the local circulation (not being capable, for want of more extended credit, of being remitted to great distances), their amount is thus limited to the purposes of local circulation; and any considerable excess, beyond this, finds, in due season, a salutary corrective.

This is one of the known benefits of the Bank. Every man of business understands it, and the whole country has realized the security which this course of things has produced.

But, Sir, as to the question of the deposits, the honorable gentleman thinks he sees, at last, the curtain raised; he sees the object of the whole debate. He insists that the question of the restoration of the deposits, and the question of rechartering the Bank, are the same question. It strikes me, Sir, as being strange, that the gentleman did not draw an exactly opposite inference from his own premises. He says he sees the northern friends of the Bank, and the southern opposers of the Bank, agreeing for the restoration of the deposits. This is true; and does not this prove that the question is a separate one? On the one question, the North and the South are together; on the other, they separate: either their apprehensions are obtuse, or else this very statement shows the questions to be distinct.

Sir, since the gentleman has referred to the North and the South, I will venture to ask him if he sees nothing important in the aspect which the South presents? On this question of the deposits, does he not behold almost an entire unanimity in the South? How many from the Potomac to the Gulf of Mexico defend the removal? For myself, I declare that I have not heard a member

of Congress from beyond the Potomac say, either in or out of his seat, that he approved the measure. Can the gentleman see nothing in this but proof that the deposit question and the question of recharter are the same? Sir, gentlemen must judge for themselves; but it appears plain enough to me, that the President has lost more friends at the South by this interference with the public deposits than by any or all other measures.

I must be allowed now, Sir, to advert to a remark in the speech of the honorable member from New York on the left of the Chair, [Mr. WRIGHT,] as I find it in a morning paper. It is this:—

"Be assured, Sir, whatever nice distinctions may be drawn here as to the show of influence which expressions of the popular will upon such a subject are entitled to from us, it is possible for that will to assume a Constitutional shape, which the Senate cannot misunderstand, and, understanding, will not unwisely resist."

[Mr. WRIGHT said, it should have been share of influence.]

Mr.

Mr. WEBSTER Continued. That does not alter the sense. President, I wish to keep the avenues of public opinion, from the whole country to the capitol, all open, broad and wide. I desire always to know the state of that opinion on great and important subjects. From me, that opinion always has received, and always will receive, the most respectful attention and consideration. And whether it be expressed by State Legislatures, or by public meetings, or be collected from individual expressions, in whatever form it comes, it is always welcome. But, Sir, the legislation for the United States must be conducted here. The law of Congress must be the will of Congress, and the proceedings of Congress its own proceedings.

I hope nothing intimidating was intended by this expression. [Mr. WRIGHT intimated it was not.] Then, Sir, I forbear further remark.

Sir, there is one other subject on which I wish to raise my voice. There is a topic which I perceive is to become the general war-cry of party, on which I take the liberty to warn the country against delusion. Sir, the cry is to be raised, that this is a question between the poor and the rich. I know, Sir, it has been proclaimed, that one thing was certain-that there was always a hatred from the poor to the rich; and that this hatred would support the late measures, and the putting down of the Bank. Sir, I will not be silent at the threatening of such a detestable fraud on public opinion. If but one man, or ten men, in the nation, will hear my voice, I will still warn them against this attempted imposition.

Mr. President, this is an eventful moment. On the great questions which occupy us, we all look for some decisive movement of

public opinion. As I wish that movement to be free, intelligent, and unbiased, the true manifestation of the public will, I desire to prepare the country for another assault, which I perceive is about to be made on popular prejudice, another attempt to obscure all distinct views of the public good, to overwhelm all patriotism, and all enlightened self-interest, by loud cries against false danger, and by exciting the passions of one class against another. I am not mistaken in the omen; I see the magazine whence the weapons of this warfare are to be drawn. I already hear the din of the hammering of arms, preparatory to the combat. They may be such arms, perhaps, as reason, and justice, and honest patriotism, cannot resist. Every effort at resistance, it is possible, may be feeble and powerless; but, for one, I shall make an effort-an effort to be begun now, and to be carried on and continued, with untiring zeal, till the end of the contest comes.

Sir, I see, in those vehicles which carry to the people sentiments from high places, plain declarations that the present controversy is but a strife between one part of the community and another. I hear it boasted as the unfailing security, the solid ground, never to be shaken, on which recent measures rest, that the poor naturally hate the rich. I know, that, under the shade of the roofs of the capitol, within the last twenty-four hours, among men sent here to devise means for the public safety and the public good, it has been vaunted forth, as matter of boast and triumph, that one cause existed, powerful enough to support every thing, and to defend every thing; and that was the natural hatred of the poor to the rich.

Sir, I pronounce the author of such sentiments to be guilty of attempting a detestable fraud on the community; a double fraud; a fraud which is to cheat men out of their property, and out of the earnings of their labor, by first cheating them out of their understandings.

"The natural hatred of the poor to the rich!" Sir, it shall not be till the last moment of my existence; it shall be only when I am drawn to the verge of oblivion; when I shall cease to have respect or affection for any thing on earth,—that I will believe the people of the United States capable of being effectually deluded, cajoled, and driven about in herds, by such abominable frauds as this. If they shall sink to that point; if they so far cease to be men, thinking men, intelligent men, as to yield to such pretences and such clamor,-they will be slaves already; slaves to their own passions-slaves to the fraud and knavery of pretended friends. They will deserve to be blotted out of all the records of freedom; they ought not to dishonor the cause of self-government, by attempting any longer to exercise it; they ought to keep their unworthy hands entirely off from the cause of republican liberty, if they are capable of being the victims of artifices so shallow, of

« AnteriorContinuar »