1

States entirely popular, and to deny the existence of a compact. While he held that the general government could not have been brought into being without a compact, he admitted that there were in it characteristics of a popular kind-marks of a more intimate union and amalgamation of the interests of the citizens of the different states. The entire sovereignty of the states, individually, had not been retained. The government, also, for the most part, (except in the election of senators, representatives, president, and some other officers,) acted directly upon individuals, and not through the medium of state authorities. This was an essential character of a popular government. He placed little reliance, however, on the argument, that the preamble to the constitution begins with the words, "We the people." It only proved that the people of the several states had been consulted, and had given their consent to the instrument. The people of each state had been consulted, to know whether that state would form a part of the United States, under the constitution; and to that they had given their assent, simply as citizens of that state. [Note F.]

The government, then, Mr. L. said, was neither a federative compact which left to all the parties their full sovereignty, nor such a consolidated popular government as deprived them of the whole of that sovereign power. It was a compact by which the people of each state had consented to the transfer of certain powers from their state legislature to the general government. As to all these attributes of sovereignty, which by the federal compact were so transferred, the general government was supreme; the states had abandoned, and could never reclaim them. All other sovereign powers were retained by the states.

Mr. L. then considered the powers of the supreme court, in regard to which he took substantially the same view as Mr. Webster. He said the states had not only given certain powers to the general government, but had expressly given also the right of enforcing obedience to the exercise of those powers. They had declared the constitution, and laws made in pursuance of it, to be supreme; and they had also expressly consented, that the judiciary of the United States should have cognizance of all cases coming under those laws. As the constitution is paramount to a law of the United States, and as both are paramount to a law of the state, the supreme court of the United States must, of necessity, in a disputed case legally before it, determine the question; and its decision must be final; the states must be bound; for in this compact they had agreed that their citizens should be so bound.

This question was argued at length by Mr. L., with great clearness and ability; and we regret that we can not afford space for a greater portion of his speech. He controverted that interpretation of the Vir

ginia and Kentucky resolutions which authorized a state to resist the execution of a law of congress, except in a case of intolerable and unconstitutional oppression, which was not a right under the constitution, but the undisputed right of revolution.

Mr. Smith, of 8. C., dissented from the views of his colleague and other administration senators in relation to the disposition of the public lands; but concurred with them generally on the subject of the powers of the state and general governments.

The speakers who followed Mr. Webster on the same side, expressed essentially the same views in relation to the great constitutional question. Several of them displayed great ability; and, like others, digressed from the subject of inquiry proposed by the resolution, traversing the whole field of incidental topics drawn into the discussion. On the whole, the debate was one of surpassing interest. It abounds with historical facts of great importance; which alone are of sufficient value to repay its perusal.

A bill passed the senate at this session to reduce the price of public lands having been for a certain time in market, and to grant a preference to actual settlers, by selling to them at a lower price than to non-settlers. It reached the house at a late period of the session, and was laid on the table for want of time to consider it.

A bill was reported in the house, to distribute the proceeds of the sales of the public lands, after the payment of the public debt, among the several states for purposes of education, in proportion to their representation, severally, in congress. The question was discussed at length, prior to the report; but the bill reported was not acted upon.

a

CHAPTER XL.

UNITED STATES BANK.—MAYSVILLE ROAD BILL, AND OTHERS.-VETOES

OF THE PRESIDENT.

That part of the president's message which related to the bank of the United States, was referred, in the house, to the committee of ways and means, who made a most elaborate report on the subject, on the 13th of of April, 1830. The report was made by Mr. M'Duffie, of South Carolina, from whose pen it probably emanated. He was a supporter of the administration. The bank question had several times been an agitating element in our national politics. The public mind had again become quiet on the subject, and apparently regarded the bank as having become

a permanent fiscal agent of the government, the charter of which, at its expiration in 1836, would, it was presumed, be renewed, almost as a natter of course. The revival of this question under such circumstanes, and at a period nearly six years before application for a recharter f the institution was to have been expected, gave occasion for not a tle speculation as to the cause of so early an agitation of this slumring subject l'he report of the committee presented the following questions for the ision of congress : st. Has congress the constitutional power to incorporate a bank, such at of the United States?

Is it expedient to establish and maintain such an institution ? Is it expedient to establish "a national bank, founded upon the of the government and its revenues ?” maintaining the affirmative of the first of these questions, the tee stated, that the first bank had been incorporated when most eading members of the convention of the framers of the constiwere in the executive and legislative councils of the nation. wving been as yet no organization of political parties, the decihe question was presumed to have been unaffected by that party which impairs the public confidence in a legislative interpretae constitution. ewal of its charter, in 1811, had been prevented chiefly, the believed, by the then existing state of political parties. Mr. nd Mr. Madison, the former in the cabinet, and the latter in d opposed the first bank on constitutional grounds; and as bsequently been placed at the head of the party most to the extension of the powers of government by implica

question came to be regarded as, in some degree, a test inciple. Some of the most distinguished republicans, how

Mr. Gallatin and Mr. Crawford, were in favor of the as at the time of the embargo and non-intercourse meaf violent party excitement—when the leading federal

favor of the bank, were peculiarly odious to the repubce against the institution was increased also by the fact, part of its stock was held by British subjects and fedeEh all these difficulties to er.counter, the question of

only by the casting vote of the president of the ent George Clinton, and by a majority of one vote in sentatives. ars thereafter, and before the close of the war, the 2 had become so disordered, and the public finances so

a

deranged, that the secretary of the treasury, Mr. Dallas, with the sanction of Mr. Madison and his cabinet, recommended to congress the establishment of a bank, to revive the public credit, and to redeem the fiscal resources of the government from embarrassment. A bill was passed by both houses, and vetoed by him; not, however, on constitutional grounds—he considered the question of constitutionality settled but on account of objections to certain provisions of the bill. Another bill was immediately introduced, and would probably have become a law, had not the news of peace induced congress to suspend further proceedings until the next session. The attention of congress was then again directed to the subject by the president and his secretary; and, against the opposition of the state banks, and the debtor class of community, a bill was passed, and approved by Mr. Madison.

The committee then proceeded to discuss the constitutionality of a national bank. The power of congress to create a corporation had been denied. If congress, under the “ power to pass

all laws necessary

and proper to carry into effect powers" expressly granted, might inflict the punishment of death without any other authority, why might it not pass a law for creating a corporation? The chartering of a bank does not authorize the corporation to do any thing which the individuals composing it might not do without a charter. The only material particular in which the charter of the bank conferred a privilege upon the corporation apparently inconsistent with the state laws, was the exemption of the individual property of the corporators from responsibility for the debts of the corporation. But if the community dealt with the bank knowing that the capital subscribed was alone liable for its debts, no one could complain of imposition or injury. The real complaint against the bank was, not that it had not sufficient basis for its credit, but that its credit was too extensive: not against the artificial character communicated to the stockholders by the charter, but against the pecuniary operations of the bank itself. These operations consisted in the use of its own capi: tal-a faculty not derived from the government, but on the exercise of which the government imposes many useful restrictions for the benefit of itself and of the community. This analysis of a bank corporation was intended to show that it was not an unfit instrument in the hands of a government admitted to be sovereign in its appropriate sphere, for carrying into effect the powers expressly delegated. The committee say:

“ It will be no less instructive than curious, to notice some of the changes made in the opinions of prominent men, yielding to the authority of experience. Mr. Madison, who was the leading opponent of the bank created in 1791, recommended and sanctioned the bank created in 1816; and Mr. Clay, who strenuously opposed