Volume 2 — SPEECHES. (continued 11)

Another course pursued by the administration, after the catastrophe of the suspension of specie payments by the banks, demonstrates the hostile purposes towards them of the present administration. When a similar event had occurred during the administration of Mr. Madison, did he discredit and discountenance the issues of the banks, by refusing to receive them in payment of the public dues? Did the state governments, upon the former or the late occasion, refuse to receive them in payment of the dues to them, respectively? And if irredeemable bank notes are good enough for state governments and the people, are they not good enough for the federal government of the same people? By exacting specie, in all payments to the general government, that government presented itself in the market as a powerful and formidable competitor with the banks, demanding specie at a moment when the banks were making unexampled struggles to strengthen themselves, and prepare for the resumption of specie payments. The extent of this government demand for specie does not admit of exact ascertainment; but when we reflect that the annual expenditures of the government were at the rate, including the post-office department, of about thirty-three millions of dollars, and that its income, made up either of taxes or loans, must be an equal sum, making together an aggregate of sixty-six millions, it will be seen that the amount of specie required for the use of government must be immensely large. It cannot be precisely determined, but would not be less, probably, than fifteen or twenty millions of dollars per annum. Now, how is it possible for the banks, coming into the specie market in competition with all the vast power and influence of the government, to provide themselves with specie, in a reasonable time to resume specie payments? That competition would have been avoided, if, upon the stoppage of the banks, the notes of those of whose solidity there was no doubt, had been continued to be received in payment of the public dues, as was done in Mr. Madison’s administration. And why, Mr. President, should they not have been? Why should not this government receive the same description of medium which is found to answer all the purposes of the several state governments? Why should they have resorted to the expedient of issuing an inferior paper medium, in the form of treasury notes, and refusing to receive the better notes of safe and solid banks? Do not misunderstand me, Mr. President. No man is more averse than I am, to a permanent, inconvertible paper medium. It would have been as a temporary measure only, that I should have thought it expedient to receive the notes of good local banks. If, along with that measure, the treasury order had been repealed, and other measures adopted to encourage and coerce the resumption of specie payments, we should have been much nigher that desirable event, than, I fear, we now are. Indeed, I do not see when it is possible for the banks to resume specie payments, as long as the government is in the field, making war upon them, and in the market demanding specie.

Another conclusive evidence of the hostility to the state banks, on the part of Mr. Van Buren, is to be found in that extraordinary recommendation of a bankrupt law, contained in his message at the extra session. According to all the principles of any bankrupt system with which I am acquainted, the banks, by the stoppage of specie payment, had rendered themselves liable to its operation. If the recommended law had been passed, commissions of bankruptcy could have been immediately sued out against all the suspended banks, their assets seized, and the administration of them transferred from the several corporations to which it is now intrusted, to commissioners appointed by the president himself. Thus, by one blow, would the whole of the state banks have been completely prostrated, and the way cleared for the introduction of the favorite treasury bank; and is it not in the same spirit of unfriendliness to those banks, and with the same view of removing all obstacles to the establishment of a government bank, that the bill was presented to the senate a few days ago by the senator from Tennessee, (Mr. Grundy,) against the circulation of the notes of the old bank of the United States? At a time when there is too much want of confidence, and when every thing that can be done, should be done, to revive and strengthen it, we are called upon to pass a law denouncing the heaviest penalty and ignominious punishment against all who shall reissue the notes of the old bank of the United States, of which we are told that about seven millions of dollars are in circulation; and they constitute the best portion of the paper medium of the country; the only portion of it which has a credit every where, and which serves the purpose of a general circulation; the only portion with which a man can travel from one end of the continent to the other; and I do not doubt that the senator who has fulminated these severe pains and penalties against that best part of our paper medium, provides himself with a sufficient amount of it, whenever he leaves Nashville, to take him to Washington.

[Here Mr. Grundy rose and remarked, no, sir; I always travel on specie.]

Ah! continued Mr. Clay, my old friend is always specieous. I am quite sure that members from a distance in the interior generally find it indispensable to supply themselves, on commencing their journey, with an adequate amount of these identical notes to defray its expenses. Why, sir, will any man in his senses deny, that these notes are far better than those which have been issued by that government banker, Mr. Levi Woodbury, aided though he be by the chancellor of the exchequer, (I beg his pardon, I mean the ex-chancellor,) the senator from New York, (Mr. Wright?) I am not going to stop here to inquire into the strict legality of the reissue of these notes; that question, together with the power of the government to pass the proposed bill, will be taken up when it is considered. I am looking into the motive of such a measure. Nobody doubts the perfect safety of the notes; no one can believe that they will not be fairly and fully paid. What, then, is the design of the bill? It is to assail the only sure general medium which the people possess. It is because it may come in competition with treasury notes or other government paper. Sir, if the bill had not been proposed by my old friend from Tennessee, I would say its author better deserved a penitentiary punishment than those against whom it is directed. I remember to have heard of an illustrious individual, now in retirement, having, on some occasion, burst out into the most patriotic indignation, because of a waggish trick played off upon him, by putting a note of the late bank of the United States into his silk purse with his gold.

But it is unnecessary to dwell longer on the innumerable proofs of the hostility against the state banks, and the deliberate purpose of those in power to overthrow them. We hear and see daily, throughout the country, among their partisans and presses, denunciations against banks, corporations, rag barons, the spirit of monopoly, and so forth; and the howl for gold, hard money, and the constitutional currency; and no one can listen to the speeches of honorable members, friends of the administration, in this house and the other, without being impressed with a perfect conviction that he destruction of the state banks is meditated.

I have fulfilled my promise, Mr. President, to sustain the first four propositions with which I sat out. I now proceed to the fifth proposition.

Fifth, that the bill under consideration is intended to execute Mr. Van Buren’s pledge, to complete and perfect the principles, plans, and policy, of the past administration, by establishing, upon the ruins of the late bank of the United States and the state banks, a government bank, to be managed and controlled by the treasury department, acting under the commands of the president of the United States.

The first impression made by the perusal of the bill is the prodigal and boundless discretion which it grants to the secretary of the treasury, irreconcilable with the genius of our free institutions, and contrary to the former cautious practice of the government. As originally reported, he was authorized by the bill to allow any number of clerks he thought proper to the various receivers-general, and to fix their salaries. It will be borne in mind that this is the mere commencement of a system; and it cannot be doubted that, if put into operation, the number of receivers-general, and other depositaries of the public money, would be indefinitely multiplied. He is allowed to appoint as many examiners of the public money, and to fix their salaries, as he pleases; he is allowed to erect at pleasure costly buildings; there is no estimate for any thing; and all who are conversant with the operations of the executive branch of the government know the value and importance of previous estimates. There is no other check upon wasteful expenditure but previous estimates; and that was a point always particularly insisted upon by Mr. Jefferson. The senate will recollect, that, a few days ago, when the salary of the receiver-general at New York was fixed, the chairman of the committee of finance rose in his place and stated, that it was suggested by the secretary of the treasury, that it should be placed at three thousand dollars; and the blank was accordingly so filled. There was no statement of the nature or extent of the duties to be performed, of the time that he would be occupied, of the extent of his responsibility, or the expense of living at the several points where they were to be located; nothing but the suggestion of the secretary of the treasury, and that was deemed all-sufficient by a majority. There is no limit upon the appropriation which is made to carry into effect the bill, contrary to all former usage, which invariably prescribed a sum not to be transcended.

A most remarkable feature in the bill is that to which I have already called the attention of the senate, and of which no satisfactory explanation has been given. It is that which proceeds upon the idea, that the treasury is a thing distinct from the treasure of the United States, and gives to the treasury a local habitation and a name, in the new building which is erecting for the treasury department in the city of Washington. In the treasury, so constituted, is to be placed that pittance of the public revenue which is gleaned from the District of Columbia. All else, that is to say, nine hundred and ninety-nine hundredths of the public revenue of the United States, is to be placed in the hands of the receivers-general, and the other depositaries beyond the District of Columbia. Now, the constitution of the United States provides that no money shall be drawn from the public treasury, but in virtue of a previous appropriation by law. That trifling portion of it, therefore, which is within the District of Columbia, will be under the safeguard of the constitution, and all else will be at the arbitrary disposal of the secretary of the treasury.

It was deemed necessary, no doubt, to vest in the secretary of the treasury this vast and alarming discretionary power. A new and immense government bank is about to be erected. How it would work in all its parts could not be anticipated with certainty; and it was thought proper, therefore, to bestow a discretion commensurate with its novelty and complexity, and adapted to any exigencies which might arise. The tenth section of the bill is that in which the power to create a bank is more particularly conferred. It is short, and I will read it to the senate.

‘Section 10. And be it further enacted, that it shall be lawful for the secretary of the treasury to transfer the moneys in the hands of any depositary hereby constituted, to the treasury of the United States; to the mint at Philadelphia; to the branch mint at New Orleans; or to the offices of either of the receivers-general of public moneys, by this act directed to be appointed; to be there safely kept, according to the provisions of this act; and also to transfer moneys in the hands of any one depositary constituted by this act to any other depositary constituted by the same, AT HIS DISCRETION, and as the safety of the public moneys, and the convenience of the public service shall seem to him to require. And for the purpose of payments on the public account, it shall be lawful for the said secretary to draw upon any of the said depositaries, as he may think most conducive to the public interests, or to the convenience of the public creditors, or both.’

It will be seen, that it grants a power, perfectly undefined, to the secretary of the treasury, to shift and transfer the public money, from depositary to depositary, as he pleases. He is expressly authorized to transfer moneys in the hands of any one depositary constituted by the act, to any other depositary constituted by it, at his discretion, and as the safety of the public moneys, and the convenience of the public service, shall seem to him to require. There is no specification of any contingency or contingencies, on which he is to act. All is left to his discretion. He is to judge when the public service, (and more indefinite terms could not have been employed,) shall seem to him to require it. It has been said, that this is nothing more than the customary power of transfer, exercised by the treasury department, from the origin of the government. I deny it; utterly deny it. It is a totally different power from that which was exercised by the cautious Gallatin, and other secretaries of the treasury—a power, by-the-bye, which, on more than one occasion, has been controverted, and which is infinitely more questionable than the power to establish a bank of the United States. The transfer was made by them rarely, in large sums, and were left to the banks to remit. When payments were made, they were effected in the notes of banks with which the public money was deposited, or to which it was transferred. The rates of exchange were regulated by the state of the market, and under the responsibility of the banks. But here is a power given to transfer the public moneys without limit, as to sum, place, or time, leaving every thing to the discretion of the secretary of the treasury, the receivers-general, and other depositaries. What a scope is allowed in the fixation of the rates of exchange, whether of premium or discount, to regulate the whole domestic exchanges of the country, to exercise favoritism? These former transfers were not made for disbursement, but as preparatory to disbursement; and when disbursed, it was generally in bank notes. The transfers of this bill are immediate payments, and payments made not in bank notes, but specie.

The last paragraph in the section provides, that, for the purpose of payments on the public account, it shall be lawful for the secretary to draw upon any of the said depositaries, as he may think most conducive to the public interest, or to the convenience of the public creditors, or both. It will be seen, that no limit whatever is imposed upon the amount or form of the draft, or as to the depositary upon which it is drawn. He is made the exclusive judge of what is ‘most conducive to the public interests.’ Now, let us pause a moment, and trace the operation of the powers thus vested. The government has a revenue of from twenty to thirty millions. The secretary may draw it to any one or more points, as he pleases. More than a moiety of the revenue arising from customs is receivable at the port of New York, to which point the secretary may draw all portions of it, if he think it conducive to the public interest. A man has to receive, under an appropriation law, ten thousand dollars, and applies to Mr. Secretary for payment. Where will you receive it? he is asked. On New York. How? In drafts from five dollars to five hundred dollars. Mr. Secretary will give him these drafts accordingly, upon bank note paper, impressed like and simulating bank notes, having all suitable emblazonry, signed by my friend the treasurer, (whose excellent practical sense, and solid and sound judgment, if he had been at the head of the treasury, instead of Mr. Levi Woodbury, when the suspension of specie payments took place, would have relieved or mitigated the pecuniary embarrassments of the government and the people,) counter-signed by the comptroller, and filled up in the usual way of bank notes. Here is one of them, said Mr. Clay. (He here held up, to the gaze of the senate, a treasury note, having all the appearance of a bank note, colored, engraved, and executed, like any other bank note, for fifty dollars.) This, continued Mr. Clay, is a government post note, put into circulation, paid out as money, and prepared and sent forth, gradually to accustom the people of this country to government paper.

I have supposed ten thousand dollars to be received in the mode stated by a person entitled to receive it under an appropriation law. Now, let us suppose what he will do with it. Any where to the south or west it will command a premium of from two to five per centum. Nowhere in the United States will it be under par. Do you suppose that the holder of these drafts would be fool enough to convert them into specie, to be carried and transported at his risk? Do you think that he would not prefer that his money should be in the responsible custody of the government, rather than in his own insecure keeping? Do you think he will deny to himself the opportunity of realizing the premium of which he may be perfectly sure? The greatest want of the country is a medium of general circulation, and of uniform value every where. That, especially, is our want in the western and interior states. Now, here is exactly such a medium; and, supposing the government bank to be honestly and faithfully administered, it will, during such an administration, be the best convertible paper money in the world, for two reasons. The first is, that every dollar of paper out will be the representative of a dollar of specie in the hands of the receivers-general, or other depositaries; and, secondly, if the receivers-general should embezzle the public money, the responsibility of the government to pay the drafts issued upon the basis of that money would remain unimpaired. The paper, therefore, would be as far superior to the paper of any private corporation as the ability and resources of the government of the United States are superior to those of such corporations.

The banking capacity may be divided into three faculties: deposits, discount of bills of exchange, and promissory notes, or either, and circulation. This government bank would combine them all, except that it will not discount private notes, or receive private deposits. In payments for the public lands, indeed, individuals are allowed to make deposits, and to receive certificates of their amount. To guard against their negotiability, a clause has been introduced to render them unassignable. But how will it be possible to maintain such an inconvenient restriction, in a country where every description of paper importing an obligation to pay money or deliver property is assignable, at law or in equity, from the commercial nature and trading character of our people.

Of all the faculties which I have stated of a bank, that which creates a circulation is the most important to the community at large. It is that in which thousands may be interested, who never obtained a discount, or made a deposit with a bank. Whatever a government agrees to receive in payment of the public dues is a medium of circulation; is money, current money, no matter what its form may be—treasury notes, drafts drawn at Washington, by the treasurer, on the receiver-general at New York, or, to use the language employed in various parts of this bill, ‘such notes, bills, or paper, issued under the authority of the United States.’ These various provisions were probably inserted not only to cover the case of treasury notes, but that of these drafts in due season. But if there were no express provision of law, that these drafts should be receivable in payment of public dues, they would, necessarily, be so employed, from their own intrinsic value.

The want of the community of a general circulation of uniform value every where in the United States, would occasion vast amounts of the species of draft which I have described to remain in circulation. The appropriations this year will probably fall not much short of thirty millions. Thirty millions of treasury drafts on receivers-general, of every denomination, and to any amount, may be issued by the secretary of the treasury. What amount would remain in circulation cannot be determined a priori, I suppose not less than ten or fifteen millions; at the end of another year, some ten or fifteen millions more; they would fill all the channels of circulation. The war between the government and state banks continuing, and this mammoth government bank being in the market, constantly demanding specie for its varied and ramified operations, confidence would be lost in the notes of the local banks, their paper would gradually cease to circulate, and the banks themselves would be crippled and broken. The paper of the government bank would ultimately fill the vacuum, as it would instantly occupy the place of the notes of the late bank of the United States.

I am aware Mr. President, that by the twenty-fifth section of the bill, in order to disguise the purpose of the vast machinery which we are about constructing, it is provided that it shall be the duty of the secretary of the treasury, to issue and publish regulations to enforce the speedy presentation of all government drafts for payment at the place where payable, and so forth. Now, what a tremendous power is here vested in the secretary! He is to prescribe rules and regulations to enforce the speedy presentation of all government drafts for payment at the place where payable. The speedy presentation! In the case I have supposed, a man has his ten thousand dollars, in drafts on the receiver-general at New York. The secretary is empowered to enact regulations requiring him speedily to present them, and if he do not, the secretary may order them to be paid at St. Louis. At New York they may be worth a premium of five per centum; on St. Louis, they may be liable to a discount of five per centum. Now, in a free government, who would ever think of subjecting the property or money of a citizen to the exercise of such a power by any secretary of the treasury? What opportunity does it not afford to reward a partisan, or punish an opponent? It will be impossible to maintain such an odious and useless restriction for any length of time. Why should the debtor, (as the government would be, in the case of such drafts as I have supposed,) require his creditor, (as the holder of the draft would be,) to apply within a prescribed time for his payment? No, sir; the system would control you; you could not so control the system. But if such a ridiculous restriction could be continued, the drafts would, nevertheless, whilst they were out, be the time long or short, perform the office of circulation and money.

Let us trace a little further the operation of this government bank, and follow it out to its final explosion. I have supposed the appropriation of some thirty millions of dollars annually by the government, to be disbursed in the form of drafts, issued at Washington by the treasury department, upon the depositaries. Of that amount, some ten or fifteen millions would remain, the first year, in circulation; at the end of another year, a similar amount would continue in circulation; and so on, from year to year, until, at the end of a series of some five or six years, there would be in circulation, to supply the indispensable wants of commerce and of a general medium of uniform value, not less than some sixty or eighty millions of drafts, issued by the government. These drafts would be generally upon the receiver-general at New York, because on that point, they would be preferred over all others, as they would command a premium, or be at par, throughout the whole extent of the United States; and we have seen that the secretary of the treasury is invested with ample authority to concentrate at that point the whole revenue of the United States.

All experience has demonstrated, that in banking operations, a much larger amount of paper can be kept out in circulation than the specie which it is necessary to retain in the vaults to meet it when presented for payment. The proportions which the same experience has ascertained to be entirely safe, are one of specie to three of paper. If, therefore, the executive government had sixty millions of dollars accumulated at the port of New York, in the hands of the receiver-general, represented by sixty millions of government drafts in circulation, it would be known that twenty of that sixty millions would be sufficient to retain to meet any amount of drafts, which, in ordinary times, would be presented for payment. There would then remain forty millions in the vaults, idle and unproductive, and of which no practical use could be made. Well; a great election is at hand in the state of New York, the result of which will seal the fate of an existing administration. If the application of ten millions of that dormant capital could save, at some future day, a corrupt executive from overthrow, can it be doubted, that the ten millions would be applied to preserve it in power? Again; let us suppose some great exigency to arise; a season of war, creating severe financial pressure and embarrassment. Would not an issue of paper, founded upon and exceeding the specie in the vaults, in some such proportions as experience had demonstrated might be safely emitted, be authorized? Finally, the whole amount of specie might be exhausted, and then, as it is easier to engrave and issue bank notes, than to perform the unpopular office of imposing taxes and burdens, the discovery would be made, that the credit of the government was a sufficient basis whereupon to make emissions of paper money, to be redeemed when peace and prosperity returned. Then we should have the days of continental money, and of assignats, restored! Then we should have that government paper medium which the senator from South Carolina, (Mr. Calhoun,) considers the most perfect of all currency!

Meantime, and during the progress of this vast government machine, the state banks would be all prostrated. Working well, as it may, if honestly administered, in the first period of its existence, it will be utterly impossible for them to maintain the unequal competition. They could not maintain it, even if the government were actuated by no unfriendly feelings towards them. But when we know the spirit which animates the present executive towards them, who can doubt that they must fall in the unequal contest? Their issues will be discredited and discountenanced, and that system of bankruptcy which the president would even now put into operation against them, will, in the sequel, be passed and enforced without difficulty.

Assuming the downfall of the local banks—the inevitable consequence of the operations of this great government bank; assuming, as I have shown would be the case, that the government would monopolize the paper issues of the country, and obtain the possession of a great portion of the specie of the country, we should then behold a combined and concentrated moneyed power, equal to that of all the existing banks of the United States, with that of the late bank of the United States superadded. This tremendous power would be wielded by the secretary of the treasury acting under the immediate commands of the president of the United States. Here would be a perfect union of the sword and the purse; here would be no imaginary, but an actual, visible, tangible, consolidation of the moneyed power. Who or what could withstand it? The states themselves would become suppliants at the feet of the executive for a portion of those paper emissions, of the power to issue which they had been stripped, and which he now exclusively possessed.

Mr. President, my observation and experience have satisfied me, that the safety of liberty and property consists in the division of power, whether political or pecuniary. In our federative system, our security is to be found in that happy distribution of power which exists between the federal government and the state governments. In our monetary system, as it lately existed, its excellence resulted from that beautiful arrangement, by which the states had their institutions for local purposes, and the general government its institution for the more general purposes of the whole union. There existed the greatest congeniality between all the parts of this admirable system. All was homogeneous. There was no separation of the federal government from the states or from the people. There was no attempt to execute practically, that absurdity of sustaining, among the same people, two different currencies of unequal value. And how admirably did the whole system, during the forty years of its existence, move and work! And on the two unfortunate occasions of its ceasing to exist, how quickly did the business and transactions of the country run into wild disorder and utter confusion!

Hitherto, I have considered this new project as it is, according to its true nature and character, and what it must inevitably become. I have not examined it as it is not, but as its friends would represent it to be. They hold out the idea that it is a simple contrivance to collect, to keep, and to disburse, the public revenue. In that view of it, every consideration of safety and security, recommends the agency of responsible corporations, rather than the employment of particular individuals. It has been shown, during the course of this debate, that the amount which has been lost by the defalcation of individuals has exceeded three or four times the amount of all that has been lost by the local banks, although the sums confided to the care of individuals have not been probably one tenth part of the amount that has been in the custody of the local banks. And we all know, that, during the forty years of existence of the two banks of the United States, not one cent was lost of the public revenue.

I have been curious, Mr. President, to know whence this idea of receivers-general was derived. It has been supposed to have been borrowed from France. It required all the power of that most extraordinary man that ever lived, Napoleon Bonaparte, when he was in his meridian greatness, to displace the farmers-general, and to substitute in their place the receivers-general. The new system requires, I think I have heard it stated, something like one hundred thousand employees to have it executed. And, notwithstanding the modesty of the infant promises of this new project, I have no doubt that ultimately we shall have to employ a number of persons approximating to that which is retained in France. That will undoubtedly be the case whenever we shall revive the system of internal taxation. In France, what reconciled them to the system was, that Napoleon first, and the Bourbons afterwards, were pleased with the immense patronage which it gave them. They liked to have one hundred thousand dependents to add strength to the throne, which had been recently constructed or reascended. I thought, however, that the learned chairman of the committee of finance must have had some other besides the French model for his receivers-general; and, accordingly, upon looking into Smith’s history of his own state, I found, that, when it was yet a colony, some century and a half ago, and when its present noble capital still retained the name of New Amsterdam, the historian says; ‘among the principal laws enacted at this session, we may mention that for establishing the revenue, which was drawn into precedent. The sums raised by it were made payable into the hands of receivers-general, and issued by the governor’s warrant. By this means the governor became, for a season, independent of the people, and hence we find frequent instances of the assemblies contending with him for the discharge of debts to private persons, contracted on the faith of the government.’ The then governor of the colony was a man of great violence of temper, and arbitrary in his conduct. How the sub-treasury system of that day operated, the same historian informs us in a subsequent part of his work. ‘The revenue,’ he says, ‘established the last year, was at this session continued five years longer than was originally intended. This was rendering the governor independent of the people. For, at that day, the assembly had no treasure, but the amount of all taxes went, of course, into the hands of the receiver-general, who was appointed by the crown. Out of this fund, moneys were only issuable by the governor’s warrant, so that every officer in the government, from Mr. Blaithwait, who drew annually five per centum out of the revenue, as auditor-general, down to the meanest servant of the public, became dependent, solely, of the governor. And hence we find the house, at the close of every session, humbly addressing his excellency, for the trifling wages of their own clerk.’ And, Mr. President, if this measure should unhappily pass, the day may come, when the senate of the United States will have humbly to implore some future president of the United States to grant it money to pay the wages of its own sergeant-at-arms, and doorkeeper.

Who, Mr. President, are the most conspicuous of those, who perseveringly pressed this bill upon congress and the American people? Its drawer is the distinguished gentleman in the white house, not far off; its endorser is the distinguished senator from South Carolina, here present. What the drawer thinks of the endorser, his cautious reserve and stifled enmity prevent us from knowing. But the frankness of the endorser has not left us in the same ignorance with respect to his opinion of the drawer. He has often expressed it upon the floor of the senate. On an occasion not very distant, denying to him any of the nobler qualities of the royal beast of the forest, he attributed to him those which belong to the most crafty, most skulking, and one of the meanest of the quadruped tribe. Mr. President, it is due to myself to say, that I do not altogether share with the senator from South Carolina in this opinion of the president of the United States. I have always found him, in his manners and deportment, civil, courteous, and gentlemanly; and he dispenses, in the noble mansion which he now occupies, one worthy the residence of the chief magistrate of a great people, a generous and liberal hospitality. An acquaintance with him, of more than twenty years’ duration, has inspired me with a respect for the man, although, I regret to be compelled to say, I detest the magistrate.

The eloquent senator from South Carolina has intimated that the course of my friends and myself, in opposing this bill, was unpatriotic, and that we ought to have followed in his lead; and, in a late letter of his, he has spoken of his alliance with us, and of his motives for quitting it. I cannot admit the justice of his reproach. We united, if, indeed, there were any alliance in the case, to restrain the enormous expansion of executive power; to arrest the progress of corruption; to rebuke usurpation; and to drive the Goths and Vandals from the capital; to expel Brennus and his horde from Rome, who, when he threw his sword into the scale, to augment the ransom demanded from the mistress of the world, showed his preference for gold; that he was a hard-money chieftain. It was by the much more valuable metal of iron that he was driven from her gates. And how often have we witnessed the senator from South Carolina, with woful countenance, and in doleful strains, pouring forth touching and mournful eloquence on the degeneracy of the times, and the downward tendency of the republic? Day after day, in the senate, have we seen the displays of his lofty and impassioned eloquence. Although I shared largely with the senator, in his apprehension for the purity of our institutions, and the permanency of civil liberty, disposed always to look at the brighter side of human affairs, I was sometimes inclined to hope that the vivid imagination of the senator had depicted the dangers by which we were encompassed in somewhat stronger colors than they justified. The arduous contest in which we were so long engaged, was about to terminate in a glorious victory. The very object for which the alliance was formed, was about to be accomplished. At this critical moment the senator left us; he left us for the very purpose of preventing the success of the common cause. He took up his musket, knapsack, and shot-pouch, and joined the other party. He went, horse, foot, and dragoon, and he himself composed the whole corps. He went, as his present most distinguished ally commenced with his expunging resolution, solitary and alone. The earliest instance recorded in history, within my recollection, of an ally drawing off his forces from the combined army, was that of Achilles, at the siege of Troy. He withdrew with all his troops, and remained in the neighborhood, in sullen and dignified inactivity. But he did not join the Trojan forces; and when, during the progress of the siege, his faithful friend fell in battle, he raised his avenging arm, drove the Trojans back into the gates of Troy, and satiated his vengeance by slaying Priam’s noblest and dearest son, the finest hero in the immortal Iliad. But Achilles had been wronged, or imagined himself wronged, in the person of the fair and beautiful Briseis. We did no wrong to the distinguished senator from South Carolina. On the contrary, we respected him, confided in his great and acknowledged ability, his uncommon genius, his extensive experience, his supposed patriotism; above all, we confided in his stern and inflexible fidelity. Nevertheless, he left us, and joined our common opponents, distrusting and distrusted. He left us, as he tells us in his Edgefield letter, because the victory which our common arms were about to achieve, was not to enure to him and his party, but exclusively to the benefit of his allies and their cause. I thought that, actuated by patriotism, (that noblest of human virtues,) we had been contending together for our common country, for her violated rights, her threatened liberties, her prostrate constitution. Never did I suppose that personal or party considerations entered into our views. Whether, if victory shall ever again be about to perch upon the standard of the spoils party, (the denomination which the senator from South Carolina has so often given to his present allies,) he will not feel himself constrained, by the principles on which he has acted, to leave them, because it may not enure to the benefit of himself and his party, I leave to be adjusted between themselves.

The speech of the senator from South Carolina was plausible, ingenious, abstract, metaphysical, and generalizing. It did not appear to me to be adapted to the bosoms and business of human life. It was aërial, and not very high up in the air, Mr. President, either, not quite as high as Mr. Clayton was in his last ascension in his balloon. The senator announced that there was a single alternative, and no escape from one or the other branch of it. He stated that we must take the bill under consideration, or the substitute proposed by the senator from Virginia. I do not concur in that statement of the case. There is another course embraced in neither branch of the senator’s alternative; and that course is, to do nothing; always the wisest, when you are not certain what you ought to do. Let us suppose that neither branch of the alternative is accepted, and that nothing is done. What, then, would be the consequence? There would be a restoration of the law of 1789, with all its cautious provisions and securities, provided by the wisdom of our ancestors, which has been so trampled upon by the late and present administrations. By that law, establishing the treasury department, the treasure of the United States is to be received, kept, and disbursed, by the treasurer, under a bond with ample security, under a large penalty fixed by law, and not left, as this bill leaves it, to the uncertain discretion of a secretary of the treasury. If, therefore, we were to do nothing, that law would be revived; the treasurer would have the custody, as he ought to have, of the public money, and doubtless he would make special deposits of it, in all instances, with safe and sound state banks, as in some cases the secretary of the treasury is now obliged to do. Thus, we should have in operation that very special deposit system, so much desired by some gentlemen, by which the public money would remain separate and unmixed with the money of banks. There is yet another course, unembraced by either branch of the alternative presented by the senator from South Carolina; and that is, to establish a bank of the United States, constituted according to the old and approved method of forming such an institution, tested and sanctioned by experience; a bank of the United States, which should blend public and private interests, and be subject to public and private control, united together in such manner as to present safe and salutary checks against all abuses. The senator mistakes his own abandonment of that institution as ours. I know that the party in power has barricaded itself against the establishment of such a bank. It adopted, at the last extra session, the extraordinary and unprecedented resolution, that the people of the United States should not have such a bank, although it might be manifest that there was a clear majority of them demanding it. But the day may come, and I trust is not distant, when the will of the people must prevail in the councils of their own government; and, when it does arrive, a bank will be established.

The senator from South Carolina reminds us that we denounced the pet bank system; and so we did, and so we do. But does it therefore follow, that, bad as that system was, we must be driven into the acceptance of a system infinitely worse? He tells us that the bill under consideration takes the public funds out of the hands of the executive, and places them in the hands of the law. It does no such thing. They are now without law, it is true, in the custody of the executive; and the bill proposes by law to confirm them in that custody, and to convey new and enormous powers of control to the executive over them. Every custodary of the public funds, provided by the bill, is a creature of the executive, dependent upon his breath, and subject to the same breath for removal, whenever the executive, from caprice, from tyranny, or from party motives, shall choose to order it. What safety is there for the public money, if there were a hundred subordinate executive officers charged with its care, whilst the doctrine of the absolute unity of the whole executive power, promulgated by the last administration, and persisted in by this, remains unrevoked and unrebuked.

Whilst the senator from South Carolina professes to be the friend of state banks, he has attacked the whole banking system of the United States. He is their friend; he only thinks they are all unconstitutional! Why? Because the coining power is possessed by the general government, and that coining power, he argues, was intended to supply a currency of the precious metals; but the state banks absorb the precious metals, and withdraw them from circulation, and, therefore, are in conflict with the coining power. That power, according to my view of it, is nothing but a naked authority to stamp certain pieces of the precious metals, in fixed proportions of alloy and pure metal, prescribed by law, so that their exact value may be known. When that office is performed, the power is functus officio; the money passes out of the mint, and becomes the lawful property of those who legally acquire it. They may do with it as they please, throw it into the ocean, bury it in the earth, or melt it in a crucible, without violating any law. When it has once left the vaults of the mint, the law-maker has nothing to do with it, but to protect it against those who attempt to debase or counterfeit, and, subsequently, to pass it as lawful money. In the sense in which the senator supposes banks to conflict with the coining power, foreign commerce, and especially our commerce with China, conflict with it much more extensively. That is the great absorbent of the precious metals, and is, therefore, much more unconstitutional than the state banks. Foreign commerce sends them out of the country; banks retain them within it. The distinguished senator is no enemy to the banks; he merely thinks them injurious to the morals and industry of the country. He likes them very well, but he nevertheless believes that they levy a tax of twenty-five millions annually on the industry of the country! Let us examine, Mr. President, how this enormous and iniquitous assessment is made, according to the argument of the senator from South Carolina. He states that there is a mass of debt due from the community to the banks, amounting to four hundred and seventy-five millions of dollars, the interest upon which, constituting about that sum of twenty-five millions of dollars, forms the exceptionable tax. Now, this sum is not paid by the whole community, but only by those individuals who obtain discounts from the banks. They borrow money at six per centum interest, and invest it in profitable adventures, or otherwise employ it. They would not borrow it if they did not suppose they could make profit by it; and the probability is, that they do make profit by it. Instead, therefore, of there being any loss in the operation, there is an actual gain to the community, by the excess of profit made beyond six per centum interest, which they pay. What are banks? They are mere organized agencies, for the loan of money, and the transaction of monetary business; regulated agencies, acting under the prescriptions of law, and subject to a responsibility, moral and legal, far transcending that under which any private capitalist operates. A number of persons, not choosing to lend out their money privately, associate together, bring their respective capitals into a common stock, which is controlled and managed by the corporate government of a bank. If no association whatever had been formed, a large portion of this capital, a large portion, therefore, of that very debt of four hundred and seventy-five millions of dollars, would still exist, in the shape of private loans. The senator from South Carolina might as well collect the aggregate amount of all the mortgages, bonds, and notes, which have been executed in the United States, for loans, and assert that the interest paid upon the total sum, constituted a tax, levied upon the community.

In the liquidation of the debt due to the banks from the community, and from the banks to the community, there would not be as much difficulty as the senator seems to apprehend. From the mass of debts due to the banks are to be deducted, first, the amount of subscriptions which constitute their capitals; secondly, the amount of deposits to the credit of individuals in their custody; and, thirdly, the amount of their notes in circulation. How easily will these mutual debts neutralize each other! The same person, in numberless instances, will combine in himself the relations both of creditor and debtor.

The only general operation of banks beyond their discounts and deposits, which pervades the whole community, is that of furnishing a circulation in redeemable paper, beyond the amount of specie to redeem it in their vaults. And can it be doubted that this additional supply of money furnishes a powerful stimulus to industry and production, fully compensating any casual inconveniences, which sometimes, though rarely, occur? Banks reduce the rate of interest, and repress inordinate usury. The salutary influence of banking operations is demonstrated in countries and sections of country where they prevail, when contrasted with those in which they are not found. In the former, all is bustle, activity, general prosperity. The country is beautified and adorned by the noble works of internal improvement; the cities are filled with splendid edifices, and the wharves covered with the rich productions of our own or of foreign climates. In the latter, all is sluggishness, slothfulness, and inactivity. England, in modern times, illustrates the great advantages of banks, of credit, and of stimulated industry. Contrast her with Spain, destitute of all those advantages. In ancient times, Athens would present an image of full and active employment of all the energies of man, carried to the highest point of civilization, whilst her neighbor, Sparta, with her iron money, affords another of the boasted benefits of metallic circulation.

The senator from South Carolina would do the banks no harm; but they are deemed by him highly injurious to the planting interest! According to him, they inflate prices, and the poor planter sells his productions for hard money, and has to purchase his supplies at the swollen prices produced by a paper medium. Now, I must dissent altogether from the senator’s statement of the case. England, the principal customer of the planter, is quite as much, if not more, a paper country than ours. And the paper-money prices of the one country are neutralized by the paper-money prices of the other country. If the argument were true, that a paper-money country trades disadvantageously with a hard-money country, we ought to continue to employ a paper medium, to counterbalance the paper medium of England. And if we were to banish our paper, and substitute altogether a metallic currency, we should be exposed to the very inequality which has been insisted upon. But there is nothing in that view of the matter which is presented by the senator from South Carolina. If, as he asserts, prices were always inflated in this country, beyond their standard in England, the rate of exchange would be constantly against us. An examination, however, into the actual state of exchange between the two countries, for a long series of years, evinces that it has generally been in our favor. In the direct trade between England and this country, I have no doubt there is a large annual balance against us; but that balance is adjusted and liquidated by balances in our favor in other branches of our foreign trade, which have finally concentrated in England, as the great centre of the commercial world.

Of all the interests and branches of industry in this country, none has profited more by the use and employment of credit and capital derived from banks and other sources, than the planting interest. It habitually employs credit in all countries where planting agriculture prevails. The states of Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, and Louisiana, have almost sprung into existence, as it were, by magic, or, at least, have been vastly improved and extended, under the influence of the credit system. Lands, slaves, utensils, beasts of burden, and other supplies, have been constantly bought, and still continue to be purchased, upon credit; and bank agency is all essential to give the most beneficial operation to these credits. But the argument of the senator from South Carolina, which I am combating, would not be correct, if it were true that we have inflated prices on this side of the Atlantic, without a corresponding inflation of price on the other side; because the planter generally selling at home, and buying at home, the proceeds of his sale, whatever they may be, constitute the means by which he effects his purchases, and consequently neutralize each other. In what do we of the west receive payment for the immense quantity of live stock and other produce of our industry, which we annually sell to the south and southwest, but that paper medium now so much decried and denounced? The senator from South Carolina is very fond of the state banks; but he thinks there is no legitimate currency except that of the constitution. He contends that the power which the government possesses to impose taxes, restricts it, in their payment, to the receipt of the precious metals. But the constitution does not say so. The power is given in broad and unrestricted terms; and the government is left at liberty to collect the taxes in whatever medium or commodity, from the exigencies of the case, it can collect them. It is, doubtless, much the most convenient to collect them in money, because that represents, or can command, every thing, the want of which is implied by the power of taxation. But suppose there was no money in the country; none, whatever, to be extorted by the tax-gatherer from an impoverished people? Is the power of government to cease, and the people to be thrown back into a state of nature? The senator asks, if taxes could be levied and collected in tobacco, in cotton, and other commodities? Undoubtedly they could, if the necessity existed for such an inconvenient imposition. Such a case of necessity did exist in the colony of Virginia, and other colonies, prior to the revolution, and taxes were accordingly levied in tobacco or other commodities, as wolf-scalps, even at this day, compose a part of the revenue of more than one state.

The argument, then, of the senator, against the right of the government to receive bank notes in payment of public dues, a practice coeval with the existence of the government, does not seem to me to be sound. It is not accurate, for another reason. Bank notes, when convertible at the will of the holder into specie, are so much counted or told specie, like the specie which is counted and put in marked kegs, denoting the quantity of their contents. The senator tells us, that it has been only within a few days that he has discovered that it is illegal to receive bank notes in payment of public dues. Does he think that the usage of the government, under all its administrations, and with every party in power, which has prevailed for nigh fifty years, ought to be set aside by a novel theory of his, just dreamed into existence, even if it possess the merit of ingenuity? The bill under consideration, which has been eulogized by the senator as perfect in its structure and details, contains a provision that bank notes shall be received in diminished proportions, during a term of six years. He himself introduced that identical principle. It is the only part of the bill that is emphatically his. How, then, can he contend that it is unconstitutional to receive bank notes in payment of public dues? I appeal from himself to himself. The senator further contends, that general deposits cannot be made with banks, and be thus confounded with the general mass of the funds on which they transact business. The argument supposes that the money collected for taxes must be preserved in identity; but that is impossible, often, to do. May not a collector give the small change which he has received from one tax-payer, to another tax-payer, to enable him to effect his payment? May he not change gold for silver, or vice versa, or both, if he be a distant collector, to obtain an undoubted remittance to the public treasury? What, Mr. President, is the process of making deposits with banks? The deposit is made, and a credit is entered for its amount to the government. That credit is supposed to be the exact equivalent of the amount deposited, ready and forthcoming to the government whenever it is wanted for the purposes of disbursement. It is immaterial to the government whether it receives back again the identical money put in, or other money of equal value. All that it wants is, what it put in the bank, or its equivalent; and that, in ordinary times, with such prudent banks as alone ought to be selected, it is sure of getting. Again: the treasury has frequently to make remittances to foreign countries, to meet the expenditure necessary there for our naval squadrons, and other purposes. They are made to the bankers, to the Barings or the Rothschilds, in the form of bills of exchange, purchased in the market by the agents of the government here, with money drawn out of the treasury. Here is one conversion of the money received from the tax-gatherer into the treasury. The bills are transmitted to the bankers, honored, paid, and the amount credited by them to the United States. Are the bankers bound to retain the proceeds of the bills in identity? Are they bound to do more than credit the government for an equal amount, for which they stand responsible, whenever it is wanted? If they should happen to use any portion of those very proceeds of bills remitted to them in their banking operations, would it be drawing money from the treasury, contrary to the provisions of the constitution? The senator from South Carolina contends, that there is no constitutional power to contract with the twenty-five selected banks, as proposed in the substitute; yet the deposit act of 1836, which obtained the hearty approbation of that senator, contained a similar provision; and the very bill under consideration, so warmly supported by him, provides, under certain contingencies, for contracts to be made with state banks, to receive deposits of the public money upon compensation. He objects to the substitute, that it converts twenty-five state banks into a system of federal institutions; but the employment of state institutions by the federal authority, no more makes them federal, than the employment of federal institutions by the states, converts them into state institutions. This mutual aid, and this reciprocal employment of the several institutions of the general and particular governments, is one of the results and beauties of our admirable, though complex system of government. The general government has the use of the capital, court-houses, prisons, and penitentiaries, in the several states. Do they, therefore, cease to appertain to the states? It is to be borne in mind, that although the state banks may occasionally be used by the federal authority, their legal responsibility to the several states remains unimpaired. They continue to be accountable to them, and their existence can only be terminated or prolonged by the state authority. And being governed, as they are, by corporate authority, emanating from, and amenable to, state jurisdiction, and not under the control of the executive of the United States, constitutes at once a greater security for the public money, and more safety to the public liberty. It has been argued that a separation of the government from the banks will diminish the executive power. It must be admitted that the custody of the public money in various banks, subject to the control of state authority, furnishes some check upon the possible abuses of the executive government. But the argument maintains, that the executive has least power when it has most complete possession of the public treasury! The senator from South Carolina contends that the separation in question being once effected, the relation of the federal government and the state banks will be antagonistical. I believe so, Mr. President. That is the very thing I wish to prevent. I want them to live in peace, harmony, and friendship. If they are antagonists, how is it possible that the state banks can maintain their existence against the tremendous influence of this government? Especially, if this government should be backed by such a vast treasury bank, as I verily believe this bill is intended to create! And what becomes of the argument urged by the senator from South Carolina, and the abolition resolutions offered by him at an early period of the session, asserting that the general government is bound to protect the domestic institutions of the several states?

The substitute is not, I think, what the welfare of the country requires. It may serve the purpose of a good half-way house. Its accommodations appear fair; and, with the feelings of a wearied traveller, one may be tempted to stop awhile, and refresh himself there. I shall vote for it as an amendment to the bill, because I believe it the least of two evils, if it should, indeed, inflict any evil; or rather, because I feel myself in the position of a patient, to whom the physician presents, in one hand, a cup of arsenic, and, in the other, a cup of ptisan: I reject the first, because of the instant death with which it is charged; I take the latter, as being, at the most, harmless, and depend upon the vis medicatrix natura. It would have been a great improvement, in my opinion, if the mode of bringing about the resumption of specie payments, contained in the substitute, were reversed: that is to say, if instead of fixing on the first of July for resumption, it had provided that the notes of a certain number of safe, sound, and unquestionable banks to be selected, should be forthwith received, by the general government, in payment of all public dues; and that, if the selected banks did not resume, by a future designated day, their notes should cease to be taken. Several immediate effects would follow: first, the government would withdraw from the market as a competitor with the banks for specie, and they would be left undisturbed to strengthen themselves. And, secondly, confidence would be restored, by taking off the discredit, and discountenance thrown upon all banks by the government. And why should these notes not be so received? They are as good as treasury notes, if not better. They answer all the purposes of the state governments and the people. They now would buy as much as specie could have commanded at the period of suspension. They could be disbursed by the government. And, finally, the measure would be temporary.

But the true and only efficacious and permanent remedy, I solemnly believe, is to be found in a bank of the United States, properly organized and constituted. We are told that such a bank is fraught with indescribable danger; and that the government must, in the sequel, get possession of the bank, or the bank of the government. I oppose to these imaginary terrors the practical experience of forty years. I oppose to them the issue of the memorable contest, commenced by the late president of the United States, against the late bank of the United States. The administration of that bank had been without serious fault. It had given no just offence to the government, towards which it had faithfully performed every financial duty. Under its able and enlightened president, it had fulfilled every anticipation which had been formed by those who created it. President Jackson pronounced the edict that it must fall, and it did fall, against the wishes of an immense majority of the people of the United States; against the convictions of its utility entertained by a large majority of the states; and to the prejudice of the best interests of the whole country. If an innocent, unoffending, and highly beneficial institution could be thus easily destroyed by the power of one man, where would be the difficulty of crushing it, if it had given any real cause for just animadversion? Finally, I oppose to these imaginary terrors the example deducible from English history. There a bank has existed since the year 1694, and neither has the bank got possession of the government, nor the government of the bank. They have existed in harmony together, both conducing to the prosperity of that great country; and they have so existed, and so contributed, because each has avoided cherishing towards the other that wanton and unnecessary spirit of hostility which was unfortunately engendered in the bosom of the late president of the United States.

I am admonished, sir, by my exhausted strength, and by, I fear, your more exhausted patience, to hasten to a close. Mr. President, a great, novel, and untried measure, is perseveringly urged upon the acceptance of congress. That it is pregnant with tremendous consequences, for good or evil, is undeniable, and admitted by all. We firmly believe that it will be fatal to the best interests of this country, and ultimately subversive of its liberties. You, who have been greatly disappointed in other measures of equal promise, can only hope, in the doubtful and uncertain future, that its operation may prove salutary. Since it was first proposed at the extra session, the whole people have not had an opportunity of passing in judgment upon it at their elections. As far as they have, they have expressed their unqualified disapprobation. From Maine to the state of Mississippi, its condemnation has been loudly thundered forth. In every intervening election, the administration has been defeated, or its former majorities neutralized. Maine has spoken; New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Ohio, Rhode Island, Mississippi, and Michigan, all these states, in tones and terms not to be misunderstood, have denounced the measure. The key-stone state (God bless her) has twice proclaimed her rejection of it; once at the polls, and once through her legislature. Friends and foes of the administration have united in condemning it. And, at the very moment when I am addressing you, a large meeting of the late supporters of the administration, headed by the distinguished gentleman who presided in the electoral college which gave the vote of that patriotic state to president Van Buren, are assembling in Philadelphia, to protest solemnly against the passage of this bill. Is it right that, under such circumstances, it should be forced upon a reluctant but free and intelligent people? Is it right that this senate, constituted as it now is, should give its sanction to the measure? I say it in no disrespectful or taunting sense, but we are entitled, according to the latest expressions of the popular will, and in virtue of manifestations of opinion, deliberately expressed by state legislatures, to a vote of thirty-five against the bill; and I am ready to enter, with any senator friendly to the administration, into details to prove the assertion. Will the senate, then, bring upon itself the odium of passing this bill? I implore it to forbear, forbear, forbear! I appeal to the instructed senators. Is this government made for us, or for the people and the states whose agents we are? Are we not bound so to administer it as to advance their welfare, promote their prosperity, and give general satisfaction? Will that sacred trust be fulfilled, if the known sentiments of large and respectable communities are despised and contemned by those whom they have sent here? I call upon the honorable senator from Alabama, (Mr. King,) with whom I have so long stood in the public councils, shoulder to shoulder, bearing up the honor and the glory of this great people, to come now to their rescue. I call upon all the senators; let us bury deep and for ever the character of the partisan, rise up patriots and statesmen, break the vile chains of party, throw the fragments to the winds, and feel the proud satisfaction that we have made but a small sacrifice to the paramount obligations which we owe our common country.

ON THE DOCTRINE OF INSTRUCTION.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, JANUARY 14, 1839.

[THE legislature of North Carolina, elected in 1838, contained a majority of whig members, and that state being at the time represented in the senate of the United States by Messrs. Brown and Strange, both of whom were supporters of Van Buren’s administration, the legislature passed sundry resolutions, disapproving of the policy of the administration, and condemning the action of the senate in expunging the resolution against general Jackson at the close of his administration. In reply to the North Carolina senators, who gave their reasons for not obeying these instructions, Mr. Clay made the following remarks, giving his views of the doctrine of instruction, and of the peculiar case under consideration.]

I COULD have wished that some other senator had thought proper to make the few observations that are called for, by the present occasion; but as no one has risen for that purpose, and as the legislature of North Carolina are on this subject here unrepresented, and as the propositions embraced in these resolutions have not a single sentiment with which I do not most heartily concur, I trust that I shall be indulged, when making a few remarks on this occasion; and I assure the senator from North Carolina last up, that nothing is further from my purpose than to do any injustice to him or his colleague; and I think it was a little unkind and gratuitous in him, to say that he never expected to receive justice from his opponents.

The legislature of North Carolina have been charged by gentlemen, with using disrespectful language in these resolutions. But if their language was indecorous, the rules of the senate prescribe it as their course of duty, that the resolutions ought not to have been submitted; for, as I understand those rules, it is the duty of every member, when he has a memorial or resolution to be presented, to see that they are couched in the proper language. But in what respect are these resolutions disrespectful to the senate, as I understood was charged by both the senators from North Carolina?

[Mr. Strange said he made no allusion to disrespectful language.]

At least, Mr. Clay understood the other senator, (Mr. Brown,) to say that one of the resolutions was disrespectful to the senate.

[Mr. Brown said he so spake of one of the resolutions, but he thought it his duty to his state to present them, notwithstanding, and in no possible contingency could he have refused to present them.]

Mr. Clay said, I so understood the senator, that one of the resolutions was disrespectful; but he now says, that, in deference to his legislature, he still ought to present them. Sir, if there was indecorum in the language, I repeat, that it was his duty, under the rules of the senate, not to present the resolutions at all.

[Mr. Brown said there was a very marked distinction between the legislature of a sovereign state and individuals, on this subject.]

I am not aware, said Mr. Clay, that there is any such distinction expressed in the rules; and if the legislature of a state uses disrespectful language, it is no more to be received than if it were from a private citizen. But let that pass.

In what respect are these resolutions disrespectful? The senate, two or three years ago, adopted a resolution, by a vote of the majority of the body, which resolution was afterwards ordered to be expunged from the journal; and now the legislature of North Carolina say that it was, in their opinion, an act of party servility to the national executive then in power. Now let us suppose that either branch of congress had really been guilty of an act of party servility to the executive, have not legislative bodies a right to express it, in this or any other country? But whether that act was one of servility or not, is a question on which history will in due time pass its decision. But as I have said on every occasion, here and elsewhere, it was in my opinion derogatory to this body, and history will pronounce upon it the severest censure.

But the senators from North Carolina have both declared, that they would have obeyed these resolutions, if they had been mandatory in their language, instead of their being a simple expression of the will of their legislature. But let us examine the nature and extent of this apology. What is the basis, and what the principle of the doctrine of instruction? Sir, to a certain extent, I have always believed in this doctrine, and have been ever ready to conform to it. But I hold to the doctrine as it stood in 1798; that in general, on questions of expediency, the representative should conform to his instructions, and so gratify the wishes, and obey the will, of his constituents, though on questions of constitutionality his course might be different; and, therefore, when the senator last up, (Mr. Strange,) declared that he would rather submit to a certain operation, than to give his vote declaring that there had been a violation of the constitution, I felt some alarm, lest the true doctrine of instruction should itself be subverted. And it did not appear to occur to him at the time, that there was another alternative besides obeying—that is, to resign.

And what is the doctrine of instructions, as it is held by all? Is it not that we are to conform to the wishes of our constituents? Is it not that we are to act, not in our own, but in a delegated character? And will any who stand here, pretend, that whenever they know the wishes or will of those who sent them here, they are not bound to conform to that will entirely? Is it not the doctrine, that we are nothing more than the mirror to reflect the will of those who called us to our dignified office? That is the view which I take of the doctrine of instructions.

And I now ask, is any peculiar language necessary, other than that by which the will of our constituents may be understood and carried out? is there but one word that will answer—no other word, but the word instruct? Is there no other language tantamount to that? If the legislature simply express their will, is that not equivalent to the word instruct? Nay, more, is it not more respectful to those receiving the instructions, to avoid, than to use the word instructions? Infinitely more so; and I am more ready to comply with the wishes of any one, if he speaks to me in a courteous and polite manner, than if he made use of mandatory language. Sir, I say to my man Charles, please to do so and so, and he does it instantly, and with much more pleasure, than if I was more peremptory. Suppose I should say, Charles, I instruct you; he would think it very curious language; but if I say, I would be obliged to you for my shoes or boots, he goes down and brings them as quick as possible. I assure the senators it is no purpose of mine to treat them with the smallest disrespect; on the contrary, I sympathize with them, and regret extremely that they cannot conform to these resolutions, coming from so respectable a source as the legislature of North Carolina. I should have been extremely happy if they could have conformed, and I believe the constitution of North Carolina expressly provides for and secures the right of instruction, requiring the representatives of the people to conform and obey. And it appears to me, that if the legislature have the right, and choose to give instructions, it is no matter in what words or language those instructions are given; and I should feel myself bound to conform to their wishes, thus communicated. But if the argument of the senior senator, (Mr. Brown,) from North Carolina, is correct, even if the most positive language were used, as has been done on two several occasions, and in my judgment now, I suppose, if that were the case, he would not feel bound to obey the will of the legislature, in opposition to what he might be pleased to consider the will of the people, which he would regard as the paramount authority. But on one subject, at least, these resolutions speak in decisive language, on which I have not heard that the people of North Carolina have expressed any prior sentiment adverse to the course now intimated, and that is, the great subject of the public lands, which has been under laborious discussion here, for the last eight or ten days; and I confess, I regretted that these resolutions by the legislature of North Carolina were not here, that we might have had the benefit of the knowledge of their wishes, during the last week, when the debate on the subject was in progress. But I am glad they have come in before the passage of the bill, and I hope, at least, on the subject of the public lands, we shall have the vote of the senators from North Carolina, in opposition to the wild schemes which have been denounced by the resolutions of the legislature laid before us.

Mr. Clay said he was exceedingly sorry he had been instrumental in throwing the senator from North Carolina into such a rage, and nothing, he said, was further from his purpose. But if he had intimated that the legislature of North Carolina had meanly prevaricated, and had made a fraudulent use of the doctrine of instructions―

[Mr. Brown. I did not say so, my remarks were general.]

If his remarks were general, I do not see that they can have any specific application, except to this case.

[Mr. Brown, again attempting to speak, was prevented by cries of order.]

Mr. Clay said it was far from his purpose to assume jurisdiction in this case, or any authority over the senator, or his colleague; and he could not more protest against it, than Mr. Clay was unwilling to exercise it. But what was the state of the case? The senators, on presenting the resolutions of their legislature, had both made speeches addressed to this body, and had spoken of the nature of their instructions, and of the degree of authority and of duty which belonged to them; all this they had done to a body of which Mr. Clay was a member. If they had confined their thoughts on the subject to themselves, or had contented themselves with simply presenting the resolutions, Mr. Clay would have seen no occasion for any remarks on his part. But when they expressed their views of the extent of the obligations due to their instructions, on subjects in which the whole country was interested, Mr. Clay would ask if it was not proper for him to speak in reply? Mr. Clay had spoken with reluctance, and would have been glad if another gentleman had taken it upon him; but as the question was about to be put, and as North Carolina was unrepresented, he had ventured to make a few remarks, and in doing so, had called forth a most violent philippic against him personally. Mr. Clay had not felt the slightest emotion while this was going on; but as the senator had protested against Mr. Clay’s jurisdiction in the case, he should have recollected that he was assuming just such a jurisdiction over Mr. Clay; and that it was quite as exceptionable for the senator to arraign Mr. Clay’s course, as for him to arraign that of the senator’s. But Mr. Clay would say nothing in regard to himself, since his colleague, (Mr. Crittenden, on the land bill,) had disclosed the impossibility of making any adequate defence for Mr. Clay on this floor; and he therefore thought it vain for him to attempt to defend himself. But on this point the people of the country must judge; and if they condemned the course of policy, in regard to the public lands, which Mr. Clay advocated, and which had placed this country fifty years in advance of what it would otherwise have been, Mr. Clay could only submit; and if, as the senior senator from North Carolina had stated, this question had shaken the pillars of this union, it would be right to give some credit to Mr. Clay, that he had endeavored to compose that controversy, by the bill which he had introduced several years ago.

On the declaration of Mr. Strange, that he generally regarded Mr. Clay’s course as one to be avoided, Mr. Clay remarked, that it was not his course of conduct towards Mr. Strange, or any other gentleman; but when they presented any measure, he was ever ready to give it his consideration; and he would not decide against him, merely because he proposed the measure, but he would examine it, and if the ground was good, he would act with him, as Mr. Strange was about to do with Mr. Clay on graduation.

Mr. Clay again disclaimed any intention to interfere between the senators from North Carolina and their legislature, and expressed the pleasure which these resolutions gave him, especially on account of their reference to the public lands; and he further justified the remarks which he had now made, and especially by the apprehension which he felt, that the true doctrine of instructions, as stated in 1798, was now in danger of being subverted and destroyed.

PETITIONS FOR THE ABOLITION OF SLAVERY.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, FEBRUARY 7, 1839.

[THE subject of the following speech is one of momentous interest and importance to the American people, and, indeed, has for a long time attracted the attention of philanthropists throughout a large portion of the civilized world. The situation of the African portion of the population of the United States engaged the attention of Mr. Clay at an early period of his political career, as may be seen by reference to our biographical sketch. Believing, as he did, after due reflection on the subject, that the condition of the African race could be best improved by colonization in Africa, we have seen that he lent his aid and influence in establishing and promoting the American colonization society. His views on that subject are given in his speech before the society, January twentieth, 1827.

The abolition societies in the United States have in various ways manifested their opposition to colonization in Africa, and many of their members have assailed the motives and conduct of the friends of the colonization society. Insisting upon immediate abolition as the only proper course to be pursued on the subject of slavery, they have poured in their petitions to congress, session after session, asking for the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia. Mr. Clay, it will be seen in this speech, thinks that their petitions ought to have been received by congress and reported upon by a committee, instead of being laid upon the table, without further notice, as has been the practice in one or both houses of congress. Residing, as Mr. Clay does, in a slave-holding state, and from his long experience and knowledge of the subject on which he has bestowed much reflection, this speech must ever be read with interest, and regarded as the views of a philanthropist and statesman, even by those who may not accord with him in his opinions on this very exciting topic.]

I HAVE received, Mr. President, a petition to the senate and house of representatives of the United States, which I wish to present to the senate. It is signed by several hundred inhabitants of the District of Columbia, and chiefly of the city of Washington. Among them I recognize the name of the highly esteemed mayor of the city, and other respectable names, some of which are personally and well known to me. They express their regret that the subject of the abolition of slavery within the District of Columbia continues to be pressed upon the consideration of congress by inconsiderate and misguided individuals in other parts of the United States. They state, that they do not desire the abolition of slavery within the district, even if congress possess the very questionable power of abolishing it, without the consent of the people whose interests would be immediately and directly affected by the measure; that it is a question solely between the people of the district and their only constitutional legislature, purely municipal, and one in which no exterior influence or interest can justly interfere; that if, at any future period, the people of this district should desire the abolition of slavery within it, they will doubtless make their wishes known, when it will be time enough to take the matter into consideration; that they do not, on this occasion, present themselves to congress because they are slaveholders; many of them are not; some of them are conscientiously opposed to slavery; but they appear because they justly respect the rights of those who own that description of property, and because they entertain a deep conviction that the continued agitation of the question by those who have no right to interfere with it, has an injurious influence on the peace and tranquillity of the community, and upon the well-being and happiness of those who are held in subjection; they finally protest as well against the unauthorized intervention of which they complain, as against any legislation on the part of congress in compliance therewith. But as I wish these respectable petitioners to be themselves heard, I request that their petition may be read. [It was read accordingly, and Mr. Clay proceeded.] I am informed by the committee which requested me to offer this petition, and believe, that it expresses the almost unanimous sentiments of the people of the District of Columbia.

The performance of this service affords me a legitimate opportunity, of which, with the permission of the senate, I mean now to avail myself, to say something, not only on the particular objects of the petition, but upon the great and interesting subject with which it is intimately associated.

It is well known to the senate, that I have thought that the most judicious course with abolition petitions has not been of late pursued by congress. I have believed that it would have been wisest to receive and refer them, without opposition, and report against their object in a calm, and dispassionate, and argumentative appeal to the good sense of the whole community. It has been supposed, however, by a majority of congress, that it was most expedient either not to receive the petitions at all, or, if formally received, not to act definitively upon them. There is no substantial difference between these opposite opinions, since both look to an absolute rejection of the prayer of the petitioners. But there is a great difference in the form of proceeding; and, Mr. President, some experience in the conduct of human affairs has taught me to believe, that a neglect to observe established forms is often attended with more mischievous consequences than the infliction of a positive injury. We all know that, even in private life, a violation of the existing usages and ceremonies of society cannot take place without serious prejudice. I fear, sir, that the abolitionists have acquired a considerable apparent force by blending with the object which they have in view a collateral and totally different question, arising out of an alleged violation of the right of petition. I know full well, and take great pleasure in testifying, that nothing was remoter from the intention of the majority of the senate, from which I differed, than to violate the right of petition in any case in which, according to its judgment, that right could be constitutionally exercised, or where the object of the petition could be safely or properly granted. Still it must be owned that the abolitionists have seized hold of the fact of the treatment which their petitions have received in congress, and made injurious impressions upon the minds of a large portion of the community. This, I think, might have been avoided by the course which I should have been glad to see pursued.

And I desire now, Mr. President, to advert to some of those topics which I think might have been usefully embodied in a report by a committee of the senate, and which, I am persuaded, would have checked the progress, if it had not altogether arrested the efforts of abolition. I am sensible, sir, that this work would have been accomplished with much greater ability and with much happier effect, under the auspices of a committee, than it can be by me. But, anxious as I always am to contribute whatever is in my power to the harmony, concord, and happiness of this great people, I feel myself irresistibly impelled to do whatever is in my power, incompetent as I feel myself to be, to dissuade the public from continuing to agitate a subject fraught with the most direful consequences.

There are three classes of persons opposed, or apparently opposed, to the continued existence of slavery in the United States. The first are those, who, from sentiments of philanthropy and humanity, are conscientiously opposed to the existence of slavery, but who are no less opposed, at the same time, to any disturbance of the peace and tranquillity of the union, or the infringement of the powers of the states composing the confederacy. In this class may be comprehended that peaceful and exemplary society of ‘Friends,’ one of whose established maxims is, an abhorrence of war in all its forms, and the cultivation of peace and good-will amongst mankind. The next class consists of apparent abolitionists; that is, those who, having been persuaded that the right of petition has been violated by congress, coöperate with the abolitionists for the sole purpose of asserting and vindicating that right. And the third class are the real ultra abolitionists, who are resolved to persevere in the pursuit of their object at all hazards, and without regard to any consequences, however calamitous they may be. With them the rights of property are nothing; the deficiency of the powers of the general government is nothing; the acknowledged and incontestable powers of the states are nothing; civil war, a dissolution of the union, and the overthrow of a government in which are concentrated the fondest hopes of the civilized world, are nothing, A single idea has taken possession of their minds, and onward they pursue it, overlooking all barriers, reckless and regardless of all consequences. With this class, the immediate abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia, and in the territory of Florida, the prohibition of the removal of slaves from state to state, and the refusal to admit any new state, comprising within its limits the institution of domestic slavery, are but so many means conducing to the accomplishment of the ultimate but perilous end at which they avowedly and boldly aim; are but so many short stages in the long and bloody road to the distant goal at which they would finally arrive. Their purpose is abolition, universal abolition; peaceably if it can, forcibly if it must be. Their object is no longer concealed by the thinnest veil; it is avowed and proclaimed. Utterly destitute of constitutional or other rightful power, living in totally distinct communities, as alien to the communities in which the subject on which they would operate resides, so far as concerns political power over that subject, as if they lived in Africa or Asia, they nevertheless promulgate to the world their purpose to be, to manumit forthwith, and without compensation, and without moral preparation, three millions of negro slaves, under jurisdictions altogether separated from those under which they live. I have said, that immediate abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia and the territory of Florida, and the exclusion of new states, were only means towards the attainment of a much more important end. Unfortunately they are not the only means. Another, and much more lamentable one is that which this class is endeavoring to employ, of arraying one portion against another portion of the union. With that view, in all their leading prints and publications, the alleged horrors of slavery are depicted in the most glowing and exaggerated colors, to excite the imaginations and stimulate the rage of the people in the free states, against the people in the slave states. The slaveholder is held up and represented as the most atrocious of human beings. Advertisements of fugitive slaves and of slaves to be sold, are carefully collected and blazoned forth, to infuse a spirit of detestation and hatred against one entire and the largest section of the union. And, like a notorious agitator upon another theatre, they would hunt down and proscribe from the pale of civilized society, the inhabitants of that entire section. Allow me, Mr. President, to say, that whilst I recognise in the justly wounded feelings of the minister of the United States at the court of St. James, much to excuse the notice which he was provoked to take of that agitator, in my humble opinion, he would better have consulted the dignity of his station and of his country in treating him with contemptuous silence. He would exclude us from European society—he who himself can only obtain a contraband admission, and is received with scornful repugnance into it! If he be no more desirous of our society than we are of his, he may rest assured that a state of eternal non-intercourse will exist between us. Yes, sir, I think the American minister would have best pursued the dictates of true dignity by regarding the language of the member of the British house of commons as the malignant ravings of the plunderer of his own country, and the libeller of a foreign and kindred people.

But the means to which I have already adverted are not the only ones which this third class of ultra-abolitionists are employing to effect their ultimate end. They began their operations by professing to employ only persuasive means in appealing to the humanity, and enlightening the understandings, of the slaveholding portion of the union. If there were some kindness in this avowed motive, it must be acknowledged that there was rather a presumptuous display also of an assumed superiority in intelligence and knowledge. For some time they continued to make these appeals to our duty and our interest; but impatient with the slow influence of their logic upon our stupid minds, they recently resolved to change their system of action. To the agency of their powers of persuasion, they now propose to substitute the powers of the ballot-box; and he must be blind to what is passing before us, who does not perceive that the inevitable tendency of their proceedings is, if these should be found insufficient, to invoke, finally, the more potent powers of the bayonet.