« PreviousContinue »
has bestowed none of its favors. The mammoth, as it is called, is one of those incorporeal existences, which, like one of several heads, (said to reside not distant from this place,*) can be felt, though not seen. I am as far from the influence of the former, as all who hear me will admit I am from that of the latter. My associations have been with those whose interests are connected with state banks. Politically, I have been opposed, as well to the exclusive friends, as to the exclusive opponents of the United States Bank. I deem a national bank necessary. In its present form, I would not vote for a renewal of the charter of the existing bank. With modifications limiting the power to establish branches, and subjecting the capital to the same taxes imposed by states upon local banks, I would vote for the renewal of this bank, rather than create a new institution with the same powers, for the mere purpose of gratifying those desirous for a new distribution of stock. With these views, I shall vote against the fourth resolution, not because I am in favor of renewing the present charter, but because I have no other mode to avoid committing myself against the continuance of any bank with a proper charter.
On the occasion to which I have referred, when I expressed my views at large upon this interesting subject, and in this place, I stood by the side of an honest, fearless, and mighty man in debate.† What small aid I could, I added to that great effort, in which he advocated the constitutionality, and demonstrated the necessity of a Bank of the United States. In that same effort, with that keen vision which in him seemed almost prophetic, he warned the people of this state, of the calamities which would follow the abolition of an institution, the basis of which was laid by the father of our country. His tongue is mute now, his head is low in the earth, and the heart which sent forth that earnest appeal, no longer beats even with wishes for his country's good. Standing in the place he then occupied, carried back by the relation of the subject to that occasion, and oppressed by the reflection that I have assumed the responsibility then so nobly shared, and so greatly discharged by him, I would not unnecessarily venture upon a discussion of this all-important question. The day is coming which will give fearful confirmation of the alarms we then sounded here. The springs of our country's adversity are already sending up their
The Albany Regency.
The Hon. William H. Maynard.
waters beneath our feet; these streams will increase in number and volume, and will mingle and swell into a tide which human wisdom cannot stay from sweeping over the land. Then, loud and senseless declamation, then, the reckless instigation of popular prejudice and passion will no longer avail. Then, in that fearful day of suffering for past delusion, and of retribution for past abuses of a confiding people, the thousand warnings which have been uttered in vain, may peradventure be remembered. Until then, so far as I am concerned in the councils of the state, let the argument be postponed.
The first resolution is in these words:
"Resolved, That the removal of the deposits from the Bank of the United States, is a measure of the administration of which we highly approve."
When I regard this resolution as one which is designed to have effect abroad, and to remain upon our journals as a part of the record of these interesting proceedings, it seems to me very unhappily expressed. The necessity for being explicit in our instructions to Congress, is quite as obvious as the necessity for giving instructions at all. A journal which, as if by magnetic sympathy, assumes to settle this important question before it has been considered here, and to pronounce the judgment of this Senate before the resolutions have been debated, has called them "the voice of New York." Let, then, that voice be as intelligible and unequivocal as it will be trumpet-tongued. Both houses of Congress are engaged in the discussion of this important subject. On one side are employed all the power and eloquence of argument derived from truth, prudence, justice, and national faith; on the other is boasted that more simple and effective machinery which dispenses with the exercise of the reasoning powers, and relieves members from the responsibility of motives, as well as debate. I can imagine something of the scene in the Senate. The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. CLAY] concludes a philippic against the President's daring usurpation, imbued with all the impassioned eloquence of Fox. The Senator from New Jersey, [Mr. SOUTHARD] in a speech which combines both the argument and invective of Burke, strips the atrocious measure of the pretexts of " the public convenience," and "the promotion of the public interests." The Senator from South Carolina, [Mr. CALHOUN] not altogether lost to his country, defends the violated constitution with an argument so full of truth, of patriotism, and overwhelming eloquence, as
almost to redeem him from the censure of unpardonable errors. The administration "which you approve," is left to rely alone upon the intemperate efforts of the gladiatorial Senator from Missouri [Mr. BENTON.] What wonder that the numerous auditory of citizens exhibit their sympathy in the triumph of truth, reason, and justice. Sir, the world nowhere else exhibits so glorious a scene. It is like that of a Roman Senate on the eve of being subjected, but not yet ready to own a dictator. Mark, I pray you, the countenance of him who recently assumed the chair, [Mr. VAN BUREN.] The "wreathing smiles of triumph" so recently boasted, have given place to a gloom upon his brow, expressive of despondency. The solemn silence which precedes the final vote is broken by the annunciation of a messenger from New York. The "empire state" sends, as she has done before, a "missive bearing healing on its wings," to her drooping, "favorite son." Mark the proud flash of his eye while he breaks the seal. "Resolved, That the removal of the deposits from the Bank of the United States is a measure of the administration-of which we highly approve." "Please read the resolution again," says the critical Senator from South Carolina, "I do not understand whether the Legislature of New York mean to approve of the removal of the deposits by the administration, or of the administration itself." "Non-committal again, Mr. President!" exclaims the ardent Senator from Kentucky. "Long habit of speaking en double entendre," says the sarcastic Senator from Massachusetts, [Mr. WEBSTER] "has rendered the Legislature of New York unable to speak without equivocation." The chagrined "favorite son" turns to the worthy senators from this state, and angrily asks, “Have we left no body at home to do our work better than this?" But the trio are relieved by a happy thought from the Senator from Missouri. 'Why, it's clear it's only going the whole; the Legislature of New York approve of the removal of the deposits by the administration because it is an act of the administration of which they approve." Sir, I would spare our state pride such a mortification, but it is no business of mine to mend these matters.
But I cannot plead ignorance. I have learned from an organ to which I have before referred, how this resolution is to be understood here; and shall therefore discuss it as intending to approve of the removal of the deposits.
I shall vote against the resolution, because, in my judgment,
the removal of the deposits was an act illegal and unconstitutional. By whom, sir, was this act committed? I answer and aver that it was the act of the President of the United States.* I admit, that in the communication of Mr. Taney, as Secretary of the Treasury, he says the act was done by himself, and that the President, in his annual message, informs Congress that "the Secretary had deemed it expedient to direct the removal of the deposits, and he had concurred in the measure." Against these authorities, from so respectable a source, I regret to be compelled to use the authority of the President himself. But the document from which I shall read is one you are prepared to adopt, and although it clash with that of the Secretary, which you are also prepared to adopt, it must be good evidence. I leave those who adopt both to reconcile their incongruity.
What, then, are the facts? On the 18th day of September, 1833, the deposits were in the Bank of the United States, William J. Duane was Secretary of the Treasury, and Roger B. Taney was Attorney General. On that day the President read in his Cabinet, and the next day gave to the world, the document from which I read as follows:
"From all these considerations, the President thinks that the state banks ought immediately to be employed in the collection and disbursement of the public revenue, and the funds now in the Bank of the United States drawn out with all convenient dispatch."
The President again repeats, that he begs his Cabinet to consider the proposed measure as his own, in the support of which he shall require no one to make a sacrifice of opinion or principle. Its responsibility has been assumed, after the most mature deliberation and reflection, as necessary to preserve the morals of the people, the freedom of the press, and the purity of the elective franchise, without which all will unite in saying, that the blood and treasure expended by our forefathers in the establishment of our happy system of government, will have been vain and fruitless. Under these convictions, he feels that a measure so important to the American people cannot be commenced too soon; and he therefore names the first day of October next as a period proper for the change of the deposits, or sooner, provided the necessary arrangements with the state banks can be made."
Mr. Duane refused to make the order required by the President for the removal of the deposits, and was removed because he did so refuse. Mr. Taney, who had avowed himself ready to make the order, was instantly appointed Secretary of the Treasury, and did make the order.
After this review of the transaction, who will say that the deposits were not removed by the President of the United States, or that Mr. Taney was more than the mere instrument used to effect the removal? And yet both the Secretary and President
gravely inform Congress that he, Mr. Taney, the Secretary, "had deemed it expedient to direct the removal of the deposits, and the President had concurred in the measure." As well might the commissioners appointed by William IV., in his name, to open or prorogue parliament, say they opened, they prorogued parliament, and it was not the king their master. You who are admirers of Andrew Jackson, to whom do you ascribe the glory of the act? You will answer, "It was the President." You who lament his misrule, upon whom do you bestow the censure? You will answer, "the President."
And now let me ask, is it the same Andrew Jackson, who, on the 18th September, 1833, read this document in his Cabinet, declaring the act of removing the deposits his own, and on the first Tuesday of December sent this document to Congress, declaring that it was the act of the Secretary. Sir, in the one, it was the soldier, the hero, who spoke; in the other, it was the politician.
And now, having established that the measure was the proper act of the President, let us next inquire, what right had the President to remove the deposits? They are the funds, the treasures of the government. They were in the Bank of the United States by virtue of law.
Is the President the Secretary of the Treasury? No; but it is claimed by the President that he has absolute control of the treasury department. To me this assertion seems so bold, so reckless, so fearful in its consequences, that I must be indulged with an opportunity to examine it. It rests upon the unsupported assumption that the treasury is an executive department. But the act of Congress, by which it was established, repudiates the assumption. All the other departments are, in the respective acts by which they are established, declared to be executive departments. That of the treasury is, on the other hand, called a department. But I go further, and maintain that from the very nature of the Constitution it cannot be an executive department. Its duties are, to collect, preserve, and disburse the revenues. Those revenues are, exclusive of the executive, under the management, care, and keeping of the representatives of the people, the legislature. From the impracticability of the managing, guarding, and disbursing those moneys by Congress, it results that there must be a delegation of a portion of those duties; that delegation might be