North Carolina Newspapers

    ERN CAMOI
PUBLISHED EVERY SATURDAY: AS3321D131L SSHUma &Y!E jJCD3I3l?ia Wo mASIlPaiSJa I?IEI?2iai2WIB3 Vol. 15, No. 41 Whole No. 771
AT TWO DO 1.1. AJRS A YEAR,
If Paid in Advance.
Or Two Dollars and Fifty Cent,
After the expiration of 3 month.
TH2E WIS
STI
,INIAN.
SALISBURY, NORTH CAROLINA, MARCH 14, 1835.
LEGISLATIVE DEBATE.
SPEECH OF MIL OUTLAW, of Kkrtie,
On the Resolutions instructing Senator Mangum.
Mr. Speaker: I a in fully sensible of the dis
advantages under which I rise to address this House.
Its attention has already Ijeen wearied by the length
of this discussion, and many are anxious to bring
it to a close. I am also aware that many of those
whom I am addressing have so far prejudged the
subject, that there is little hope that any thing
which can be said, will produce any change in their
opinions. Notwithstanding all" these discouraging
circumstances, so important do I regard the prin
ciples involved, that I shall proceed freely to ex
press my sentiments; and whilst I shall Ik restrain
ed, lioth by a proper self-respect and respect for the
body of winch I am a member, from violating either
the rules of propriety or deconim, I shall yet speak
with Incoming freedom the words of soberness and
truth.
We were told, at an early period of the session,
by the gentleman from Warren, (Mr. Bragg,) when
the projhisition was made by him to go immediate
Iv into an election of Senator, that it was necessary
to dispose of that distracting question, in order that
our minds might be properly qualified for a dis
charge of our legislative duties. Scarcely, how
ever, is that triumph achieved, scarcely are the
hearts of the democracy gladdened, before the kit
tle shout is again heard, the lanner of party un
furled, and all faithful lieges called ujxin to rally
under its standard. The hearts of the democracy
are again to be gladdened ; our idol is not satisfied
with the re-election of Mr. Brown ; the most dis
tinguished of our public men must lc sacrificed ;
and we are called upon to officiate at the altar.
Yes, that miserable policy of dragging down our
eminent citizens as soon as they attain any distinc
tion, that policy which has peopled the South, the
South-west, ami the West, with your most able and
enterprising young men, is still to be continued.
I took occasion, Mr. Sjeaker, upon a firmer occa
sion, when we were told that the Hon. Mr. Brown
was the Administration candidate, to inquire whe
ther orders to that effect had been received from
the upper or nether Cabinet. Were it not perfectly
unnecessary, I would again repeat the inquiry.
We can, however, be at no fault upon this occasion.
The official paper of the Administration has called
ujxn us, in terms very much like a command, to
pass these resolutions; and why? Because Mr.
Benton desires it, and (Jen. Jackson has an almost
filial regard for North Carolina! Yes, the foul and
filiv organ of the Kitchen Cabinet has dared to lec
ture us upon our duty- We are to degrade and
disgrace, in public estimation, one of the distinguish
ed sons of this State, to minister to the gratification
of Mr. Benton and General Jackson. Are we pre
pared to register, this edict at which the most
degraded of the Roman provinces would have felt
itself dishonored I Sir, have we so far forgotten
the dignity of our stations, the honor of our con
stituents, as to submit to this dictation? Have the
people of North Carolina commissioned us to do
this deed? Have we any, the slightest authority
to sacrifice our citizens for the gratification of any
man, in or out of office?
M r. Speaker, these resolutions have in view three
objects. One is the expulsion of Judge Mangum
from the Senate, fjecause he neither is, nor will he
become, the instrument to aid the elevation of Mar
tin Van Buren to the Presidency, or the introduc
tion of his abominable and detestable system of
party tactics and proscription. They have another
object. I am aware that I may apcar to speak
harshly, and if so, I regret it, but I am in the dis
charge of a high public duty, and I cannot mince
inv words. I say they have another object, which
des not meet the eye. Some ambitious aspirant
of the party, some friend of the democracy, their
friend, lecause he w ishes to use them, wishes Judge
Mangum's place. Yes, sir, and so keen are his
desires, so eager are his palpitations, that he can
not wait until Mr. Mangum's term expires. Shall
we minister to this unchastencd ambition ? But,
Mr. Speaker, these resolutions have another object,
vastly more important than either of these to which
I have adverted, and which, I confess, fills my mind
with profound alarm. They aim a blow, through
the Senator from this State, at the Senate of the
United States. They are designed to prostrate;
that body, the principal barrier against arbitrary
power, at the footstool of the Executive of the Uni
ted States. It has dared to say to the President,
thus far shalt thou go, and no farther; and it is
either to Ik: made to bend, or to be rendered odious
nnd eontenintible in oublic estimation. This is ohm?
f a series of measures having in view the saine
.object, that is, the subserviency of the Senate, or
iinjKjrtant changes in its very constitution. This
as a rave charge, and ought not to !e lightly made.
J)oes any man doubt the fact ? If he does, 1 direct
Jiim to the President's Protest. Are not the aris
lcratic features of the Senate held up in bold re
lief in that document to the public gaze, either to
xcite popular prejudice or to produce popular dis
trust? Does not that paper mkhk ot us irrespon
nihility, its long term of service, its not being the
' ,r..i:oto t-iii-ftit.-iti v tf llie neonle ? Is this
nil ? Has not the party press waged against it a
constant war? Has it not leen called the factious
Senate," the irresponsible Senate I Have not some
of them boldlv advocated the most important cluin
res in its organization ? Have not resolutions, of
which these are a mere copy, been introduced into
the New Jersey Legislature, and passed I fcir, all
these are significant indications, printing to tle
cime object, which it becomes this House solemnly
to consider. I ask the members of this Ivxly, if
their constituents have sent them here to participate
in this nefarious and wicked conspiracy against one
of the departments of the Federal Government ?
I ask them, as they shall answer it to ineir con
fences and their country, to withhold the sac rile
frious blow uplifted against that Senate, in which
he federative character of our government is pre
served that Senate to w hich we must look for a
defence of the rights and sovereignty ot the siuios
I had originally intended, Mr. Speaker, to say
nothing on the first resolution of the gentleman
from Edgecomb, (Dr. Potts.) Upon further reflec
tion, however, I will express briefly my views upon
the proposition therein affirmed, lest it should be
supjMjscd I shrink from an avowal of my opinions.
The subject is one to which my attention has not
lecn directed until recently, and I had taken it for
granted the Legislature had the right to instruct,
simply lecause such had liecn the practice. But,
sir, I deny that there is any thing in the Constitu
tion which, either directly or by implication, clothes
the General Assembly w ith this high power claimed
for it.
The gentleman from Halifax, (Mr. Daniel,) if I
understoKl him, claimed this as resulting from our
legislative owers. Sir, this will not stand the
slightest examination. The right of instruction is
not a legislative power in any sense of that word.
If the Legislature have a right, by reason of their
legislative powers, to instruct in matters of legisla
tion, by parity of reasoning, the State Judiciary
have a right to instruct the Senators in regard to
their judicial duties, and the State Executive as to
their executive duty. So far as our Constitution
speaks of instructions at all, it is in the Bill of
Bights. What is there said ? Is not the power
in question in express terms reserved to the people
themselves ? Under what pretence, then, do this
body arrogate this power to themselves ? Sir, the
j)ower of electing a Senator w as conferred after the
adoption of our State Constitution, by the Consti
tution of the United States, upon this Assembly.
But I am to be told that we elect, that we are the
constituents of the Senator, and, therefore, have
this right. True, sir, we do elect, so do the elec
tors chosen for that purpose elect a President. We
are an electoral college tor one purpose, as they
are for another. Yet who ever heard, what politi
cal madman ever dreamed, that those electors had
any right either to instruct or censure the Presi
dent? But are wc the constituents of the Senator?
No. I deny the proposition in the most unqualified
terms. What says the Federal Constitution ?
That each State shall Ikj entitled to two Senators,
to I e elected by the Legislatures thereof. Sir, the
Senators represent the State, the Sovereign People
of North Carolina, and when I speak thus, I speak
in the words of the Constitution. They are, when
chosen, the agents of the people, to effect certain
si)ccific purposes, as we are their agents to eflect
certain other puriMses. We the constituents of
the Senators ! We the Sovereign State of North
Carolina ! The proposition need only to be stated,
to be laughed to scorn.
Sir, I put this case to those who support the first
resolution, which asserts, in broad term., this right,
and I call upon them to answer it : Suppose the
Senate, sitting as a court of imeachmei)t, under
the solemn obligations required by the Constitution,
and our Senators express an opinion or give a vote,
in the propriety and correctness of which the wise
men of this IxxJy do not concur. I ask, can it be
pretended that this Legislature has a right to in
terfere in the slightest degree with the high judicial
luties of their station ? Again : Suppose the re-
natc is in the discharge of its executive duties.
Can it Ikj supposed that the framers of the Consti
tution ever intended that the manner in which those
luties were to lo performed was subject to our re
vision and control, when that instrument has placed
it completely within the power of the Senate to
place the seal of secrecy on its proceedings, and
forever veil them from the public view? Can we,
when the President and Senate have formed a trea
ty, within the scope of their constitutional powers,
with a foreign nation, whereby the public faith is
pledged, bid them rescind it, and violate the faith
of the nation? The most bigoted, blind, and furi
ous partizan will scarcely contend for such mon
strous propositions ; and yet we are called upon to
vote for a resolution which claims tor tins body
this high prerogative one which would introduce
infinite confusion and mischief.
Sir, we have no authority whatever to instruct
Mr. Mangum, unless the people have sent us here
for that purpose. If we undertake to do so, we
hall le guilty of that usurpation which some gen
. . . ...
tleuien allege against the Senate. Sir, I appeal to
the candor of the members here, and confidently
ask them, have vou been delegated for any such
purpose? Did you of course I address the great
mass ot the party, not their leaders uui you ever
hear of this movement until you reached this city,
and until Mr. Brown was re-elected ? Was the
proposition to expunge this resolution of the Senate
discussed in five counties in North Carolina? No
man ean have the hardihood to make such an as
sertion. cir, 1 put it to the gentleman irom ualr
fix, (Mr. Daniel,) to answer me, which represents
that county correctly, him or ins colleagues I it
is my misfortune to lie in the same predicament as
that gentleman. My colleagues differ with me in
nolitics. There is the same diversity of sentiment
in Northampton, Hertford, and many other counties
I mention these facts to prove, as they do most con
clusively prove, that these resolutions have not
originated with the people ; that the elections were
not made with a view to this matter ; and that,
therefore, wo are assuming unauthorised power.
Sir, mv ideas upon this subject are simply these :
This Legislature has an undoubted right to express
its opinions upon any subject. It not only has the
riht, but it is its solemn duty to do so, when the.
public liberty is endangered, when the rights of its
constituents are invaded, or when any "great pub
lic emergency 1 demands it. I his opinion, ex
pressed by the immediate representatives of the
people, so far as it may le supposed to express their
sentiments, should be listened to by our Senators
with the most resprctful attention, and, when it re
lates to a matter of exjcdiency, ought to be gene
rally olieved.
But, sir, whilst I go thus far, I am further bound
to say, that, upon constitutional questions, neither
the people nor the Legislature have any right what
ever to instruct. They have imposed restrictions
upon themselves and upon the Senator, which he
nor they can throw off.
These resolutions, even if we have a right to in
struct, are not such as I could vote for. What is
the only legitimate object of instruction? I have
always understood that it was to enlighten the mind
of the representative, in regard to some great ques
tion of public policy then actually pending, or upon
which it was expected he would be called to act.
f this be not, then I confess I have always been
aboring under a delusion upon this subject, and I
am utterly unable to appreciate its value. Is that
the object of these resolutions? ill any man say
it is? Is not the object an entirely different one
one w hich the friends of this measure are ashamed
to avow in plain terms, and which they have not
the slightest right to eflect, viz: Judge Mangum's
expulsion from the station which he now fills with
so much honor to himself and credit to North Ca
rolina ?
Another question involved in these resolutions is,
lad the Senate a right to pass the resolution which
las given so much offence? I confess, sir, that it
is with some degree of astonishment that I have
leard the negative of this proposition allirmed.
The facility with which politicians and public men
change their principles, is even now the theme of
scorn and ridicule. And, sir, it is one of the most
ominous and fearful signs of the times, that whole
communities of men, without any conceivable rea
son, should suddenly change their most cherished
and deep-rooted opinions at the bidding of one man.
It argues either such deep corruption m the people,
or such a spirit of idolatry, as seriously to threaten
our institutions. Have we not seen the great State
of Pennsylvania, as if by magic, entirely changing
ler Kihtical principles at the command of a Presi
dent ? It is really astonishing how forgetful we
are when in the pursuit of a favorite object ; for I
cannot supjMse that the well informed members of
the Jackson party in this House, can be ignorant of
the precedents on this subject, or that they would
wilfully mislead those who are Charity, sir that
charity which, from the infirmity of my nature, I
so frequently need, and am, therefore, willing to
extend to others forbids me to make any such
supposition.
The case of the Postmaster General was men
tioned by my friend from Rowan, (Mr. Craige,)
where, by an unanimous vote, it was declared that,
in borrowing money, he had violated the Constitu
tion. 1 defy any man to point out any distinction
in principle in the two cases. If this resolution,
which we wish expunged, was a judicial act, so was
that. If the Senators had disqualified themselves
to sit as judges in one case, they had in the other.
But, sir, this is not the only precede!. , It will le
recollected, by those familiar with Mr. Adams's ad
ministration, that, in his message nominating to the
Senate ministers to Panama, he claimed the power
to have commissioned them without the advice
and consent" of that body. The honorable Sena
tor from Halifax, at that time a Senator in Con
gress, then, as now, opposed to usurpation, then, as
now, on the side of liliertv, the law, and the Con
stitution, introduced a resolution solemnly denying
the doctrine asserted by Mr. Adams, and protest
ing, in the name of the Senate and of the States,
against this unconstitutional assumption. The sub
ject was debated, and so far as I know, and I have
examined the debates upon that subject with some
attention, not one individual pretended to question
the right of the Senate to pass such a resolution.
No, sir, that profound discovery in political science
and constitutional law was left Car the Solomons of
the present day. It was left to that foul cabal who,
unfortunately for Gen. Jackson, and for tli3 prospe
rity of this nation, practically control its destinies.
Sir, am I to Ikj told that, as this was a defence
of the Executive powers of the Senate, it is not
analagous to this case ? Sir, are we children ? Do
we view this matter with the enlarged views of
statesmen, or the narrow spirit of special pleaders?
Have not the Senate as much right to defend their
judicial or legislative powers as their executive?
It is an insult to the understanding of this body to
argue such a question.
But I will not stop here. I know the force of
names, and I invoke to my aid "clarum et venera
bile nomen," a name which makes this State re
spected in ever' other in this Union the name of
Nathaniel Macon a man, sir, not just washed
white from his sins of Federalism by Jacksonism,
but one of the fathers of the Republican church.
In the debate on the resolution to which I have re
ferred, he thus expresses himself:
"If every department of this Government, the Sen
ate, the House of Representees, ami the President, did
not watch trie imwer which the Constitution has given
them, but let it be taken from them by piece-meal, who
could tell where it would endr
It had often been said that, in this Government, the
Departments were to balance each other. How was
this balance to be kept up: Aot hv constantly increa
sin" the power of one Department of this Government;
but the House of Representatives should take care ot
the portion committed to them, the Senate theirs, and
the President his. Was this House, when their rights
were, as they supposed, infringed, to waic for the inter
ference of tfie House of Representatives? There was,
Mr. M. said, a tendency in every Government to create
power.
"Governments were made on the suspicion that all
those who had power would go wrong. He would go
further, and suppose it a doubtful question, whether the
Executive, in his message, had claimed this power or
not. Most of the gentlemen who had contenued lie did
not, had contended he had a right to do so. If the ma
iority of the Senate thought differently, was it not pru
dent in them to express their opinion J Had they not
the same right to express their opinion on their powers !
And was it not as much their duty to do so as for the
President to declare his .Vr. Macon' Speech, Re
gister of Debates, 18-2. and '2b, pages Ml and
It is impossible for him to have been orem ex
plicit. Among those who acted with the Senators
from North Carolina on that occasion, were the
Senators from Tennessee, the bosom and confiden
tial friends of (ion. Jackson, Mr. Van Buren, the
present Secretary of the Treasury, and Mr. Benton,
whose lugubrious notes on the cruel impeachment
of the President, we have heard so much, and to
gratify whom we are to degrade one of our distin
guished citizens.
Yes,. Mr. Speaker, that very party who are so
shocked at this judicial resolution, have themselves
furnished a precedent precisely in point. In the
absence of all precedents, however, I hold that it is
not only the right, but the duty of each department
of the Government to defend its own peculiar rights
and previleges, against either or all the others.
They were designed as checks upon each other.
That was the very object sought to be accomplish
ed by the division of power among them ; yet if
this new tangled doctrine is to prevail, this object
will be wholly defeated. If the Senate had no
right to pass this resolution, where did the Presi
dent obtain the right to make a Protest ? Do the
special guardians of the Constitution require that
paper to be expunged ? Yet, sir. the right to send
it might, with infinitely more reason, be question
ed. Why, sir, let us see to what consequences
this doctrine will lead. The President takes it up
on himself to commission a public minister in the
session of Congress without the advice of the Sen
ate. Sir, is that body bound to acquiesce, lest, by
possibility, the President may be impeached, and
they become his judges? Am I supposing an im
probable case ? It is what has actually occurred
during this Administration in more instances than
one. The case of commissiners to the Ottoman
Porte is familiar to us all. Again : suppose, by
some means or other, the House of Representatives
has become subservient to the Executive, and that
functionary, having seized the public money, is sur
rounding himself w ith a band of hired mercenaries
to overthrow the Constitution and liberties of the
country. Are the Senators to sit like the Roman,
when Brennus and his Gauls invaded and entered
Rome, and see the barriers of the Constitution clo.
ven down without offering any resistance? Sir, this
very right, which is denied the American Senate
in this free, representative, constitutional Govern
ment, has been exercised by the English House of
Commons in the most arbitrary reigns of the most
arbitrary princes of the House of Stuart. And,
sir, have we made so little progress in the princi
ples of free Government, that what was done in
the reign of the first Charles again and again, is
little short of high treason under the administration
of Gen. Jackson ?
"In the name of all the Gogs at once
Upon what meat doth this our Cae-sar feed :
That he is grown so great."
Why, sir, "he bestrides this great republic like
a mighty Colossus, and we small men must peep
through his hint? legs to look for ourselves dishon
orable graves." How far is this devotion to an
itulivKiu.il fn carry us : Is it to unsettle an tu
ancient and undisputed principles undisputed at
least until recently, of our government ? The
House cannot assert its rights, because it is its pro
vince to prefer articles of impeachment; nor the
Senate its rights, because the impeachment is to be
tried by that body. Sir, they derive the power
from the great principles of self-defence and self
preservation, and should they cowardly shrink from
its exercise when they deem it necessary, they
would basely betray the high trusts confided to
them, and justly incur the abhorrence and scorn of
the people. I maintain that, inasmuch as the Sen
ate possesses this right, they must judge what act
does constitute a violation of the powers granted
to them; and that, to deny this, would render the
right itself perfectly idle and nugatory ; and that
we have no authority to revise their decision, or sit
in judgement upon it in our official character.
But I affirm that the propositions contained in the
resolution are true ; that it was an unauthorised
assumption of power on the part of the Executive,
to remove the deposits himselt, or to interiere wun
the discretion reposed in the Secretary of the
Treasury by Congress. Y ho, in fact, removed
the public money ? Who took the responsibility?
Sir, we are at no fault on this subject. It is most
distinctly stated by the Executive that the act was
us that he assumed the responsibility he arran
ged the details, and, whilst Duane was yet in office,
ic announced, in the public papers, that they would
be removed at a particular time. Sir, did the
Constitution clothe him with any such power?
Did the laws of the land? No, the deposites were
to be made in the United States Bank and its bran
ches, unless "the Secretary of the Treasury
should otherwise order and direct. The gentle
man from Halifax tells us this is a reservation
not a grant of power- Admit it. It is a reserva
tion, by whom, to whom, and for what purpose
hv, sir, by Congress to the secretary. In the
removal, the Secretary acts as the agent of the
law-making power. I he discretion is his discre
tion not the President s discretion. His acts are
to le the result of his iudgement. His reasons for
the act are to be rendered, not to the President,
' - - - - , c
but to the representatives of the people, to whom,
by the Constitution, the management of the public
revenue is entrusted. It is admitted the money
was safe the Banks had complied with its engage
ments. But it is contended that, inasmuch as the
President possesses the power of appointment and
removal, he has a right to supervise and control all
the subordinate officers of the government. Admit
that he has the right to remove, still it will not
sustain the position. For I hold that if this power,
is exercised to effect an illegal and unconstitutional
nnroose. it as much violates the Constitution as
I f
though he did not possess it at all.
The Congress of the United States have the
power without limitation to borrow money ; yet, if
thev exercise that power to accomplish an object
not-warranted by the warrant of attorney under
which they act, they as much violate the charter
of our liberties as if they did not possess it at all.
The President has, by law. the power of removal,
to be exercised for good cause, for the benefit of the
count rv, and not an arbitrary discretion a despot
ic power, to le wielded to gratify bis passi uis.
I repudiate, altogether, the monstrous pretension
claimed bv himself and his minions, to supervise
and control the officers of the Government in the Sir, it may he said this position has been abandon
discharge of the duties entrusted to them by tie" ed. Yet, the fact that any President has dared to
laws of the land. Sir, it is a power which is dan- avow it, shows how far the views of his advisers
gei ous to our liberties, repugnant to our institutions, have extended, and is well calculated to awakea
and which deserves puhlic and unqualified reproba
tion. How is it derived I ''The Executive pow
er," we are told, is vested in the President. True ;
but what Executive power ? The terms which I
have quoted are a mere designation of that func
tionary's title of office. For immediately after,
the instrument goes on to point out the manner in
which he shall be elected. Then, sir, it defines
and limits the powers which are intrusted to him.
He has the powers and no more than are there
specifically enumerated. He does not even possess
power by implication to carry into execution those
expressly granted. For "all power necessary to
carry into execution" any given power is, in express
terms confided to Congress. Now, sir, 1 challenge
any man to show me where, in express terms, or
by any the remotist implication, this monstrous
assumption is supported. Let us examine it still
further ; for it deserves to be stripped naked and
exposed in all its hidiousness. Suppose a judg
ment is obtained in the District Court of North
Carolina. A writ of execution is placed in the
hands of the marshal ; but the President believes
the Court has erred that the decision is unconsti
tutional. Has the President a right to command
the marshal to suspend his proceeding ? To con
trol and direct him in the manner of its execution?
Is he not the officer of the law, responsible to the
law for the discharge of his duties? Sir, the Pre
sident has the right to appoint, because the power
must reside somewhere ; but when the appointment
is made, the officer is not his officer, nor responsi
ble to Aim, but to the laws of the country. Sir,
this power claimed for the President is repudiated
by the plain meaning, if not by the very terms, of
the Constitution. All civil officers are liable to
impeachment ; and can it be pretended that, upon
Inung arrainged, it would be sufficient defence that
the President commanded the deed to be done ?
Would not such an excuse be laughed to scorn?
In my opinion, though I express it with great diffi
dence, the Constitution does not clothe the President
w ith the power of removal even. lie has power to
fill all vacancies which shall happen in the recess
of the Senate, and to nominate when that body is
in session. Can it be said that a vacancy has hap
pened, when that vacancy is created by the act of
the President himself?
The expression used, plainly intimates that the
vacancy is to be the result of accident not design.
1 know that the Congress of 'S9 decided different
ly, and that decision is entitled to great respect ;
but it is by no means conclusive. A man was then
at the head of the Government, who had given the
ctronpoct pr-rf-i bis wisdom, moderation and
patriotism. How far the decision mnj nave ix.i.n
influenced by these considerations, I know not ; but
many of the ablest statesmen of that Congress en-
tertained a different opinion ; and, with graphic
power, depicted the consequences which we have
experienced. The celebrated numbers of Publius
written by Madison, Hamilton and Jay, hold a dif
ferent doctrine. Sir, 1 deny the binding efficacy
of precedents upon great questions of constitution
al law. Are the members of this House not
aware that we have equal authority for the sedition
law, and still higher authority for the constitution
ality of the United States Bank ?
Clothe the President with this power of contro-
ling all the subordinate agents of the Government;
go with him one step farther, and say that he is to
execute the laws as he understands them, and you
convert this republican, representative Government
into the simplest of all machines. 1 on remove all
the checks and barriers with which our ancestors
fenced in the public liberties, and substitute the ar
bitrary will of one man in the place of the law and
the constitution.
A great deal has been said, in this debate, of the
enormities of the Bank its interference in elec
tions its corruption of the press and the public
morals. I wish it distinctiy understood, I am not
the advocate or defender of that institution. I am
now, and always have been, opposed to the present
Bank, or any other Bank of the United States, un
less the Constitution shall be amended. But who
has made the President of the United States the
guardian of the public morals, or of the public
press? Who has made him the special guardian
of the freedom of elections ? Or whence does he
derive the power to control the management of the
Bank, or interfere with it in any way ? Does not
the charter, in express terms, prescribe the degree
of influence which the United States are to have in
that institution ? Does it not likewise, with equal
precision, point out the powers of the President ?
And, according to all rules of construction, is not
the naming of one thing the exclusion of every
other? Grant that the Bank was guilty. Was
it not the right, sir was it not the duty of the
President to issue a jSYi. Fa. and bring it to pu
nishment? Had he a right to proceed in any other
way ? Was he afraid to trust the judges and juries
of the country ? I ma- see a man kill another.
Have I any right, though his life is forfeited to the
laws, because I deem the process of justice too
slow or uncertain, to step in as an arbiter, and be
come the judge, witness, and executioner? But,
sir, there is another view of this subject which de
serves consideration. It is the open contempt
manifested by the Executive for the people's repre
sentatives. Thev, to whom the spirit of our insti
tutions, no less than the express words of the Con
stitution, confides the control and management of
the public money, had declared it was safe. let
the Executive, niu tv davs before the meet in r of
Congress, thrusts himself between the constitution
al guardians of the public treasure, seizes it, and
sets up a claim so monstrous that I can scarcely
speak of it with moderation. What are his words 1
They are substantially that the custody of the pub
lic money belongs to the Executive Department ;
and that Congress aye, sir, Congress have no
right to deprive him of it without a violation of
j the fundamental principles of the Constitution.
    

Page Text

This is the computer-generated OCR text representation of this newspaper page. It may be empty, if no text could be automatically recognized. This data is also available in Plain Text and XML formats.

Return to page view