Page images
PDF
EPUB

triotism and the love of liberty, which they have inherited from their fathers; and can the issue of such a contest be doubtful? Those who force this measure upon the people will prove too strong for them; from the unqualified control of the revenue will come thepower to exact whatever is desired, and there will be the end of free gov

ernment.

Sir, this measure should find no favor with the people. The constitution never contemplated that the president should control the revenues. So jealous were the framers on this point, that they denied to the senate the power to originate a money bill, not even allowing this body to express an opinion till the popular branch has acted. Beware then, of these insidious approaches, of these disguises of selfishness, of the cry of no bank. If there is to be no bank, why authorize the issuing of paper at all? It is wholly unnecessary to the operations of government. The duty on tea was small, too small said the British to contend about, but beneath it lay a false and dangerous principle; an unjustified assertion of power, a principle capable of vast expansion, and our fathers were too sagacious to be taken in the snare so craftily set. Let the people beware of this measure. Let the patriotic stand together shoulder to shoulder and resist the enroachments of usurpers.

[ocr errors]

Sir, it is impossible, in an argument here, to do more than glance at this absorbing subject. I have occupied more time than I intended, and yet have left many important things having, perhaps, a more important bearing than some of those upon which I have touched, wholly unnoticed. I cannot, however, pass over without adverting briefly to the declarations of the senators from North and South Carolina, Messrs. Brown and Calhoun. They concur in the opinion that this measure will be useful to the planting or slave interest. The latter gentleman assigns as a reason, that cotton is sold in a hard money market and the proceeds laid out in a market inflated with paper. By which, I suppose, he means Great Britain and this country. Does the senator really mean to assert, (speaking of these markets as they have been, not as they are, since our currency has been so improved that we have no specie,) that an ounce of silver, or any other quantity, has been worth, or is worth more in England than it is here? If he does, I should be glad to see the proof of that proposition, for it seems to me there can be no doubt that our paper has been as good as silver and gold, and our silver and gold have been as valuable as those metals are in England. I have not been aware of any difference. But if the senator has reflected a moment on the course of trade, he will perceive his error. In the first place the planters, instead of selling in the foreign markets, usually sell here; and if our market is one of inflated paper, they sell and buy under the stimulous of inflation. But, sir, there is no mystery in this trade. Those who buy here are regulated wholly by the English market, for that is the great controlling point, and give just what can be afforded, and leave a fair compensation for freight, insurance, and interest. Now, sir, if the senator has ever known or heard of an instance of allowance being made for a difference in the value of silver and gold, because our money is depreciated by paper inflation, I will thank him to inform the senate of it. I think I hazard nothing in saying that practical men know no such difference, and, in business, make no allowance for it. The consequence is not what the senator asserts, that gold and silver are depreciated by excess of paper here alone, but our excess, if it produces any effect, causes equal depreciation in England and elsewhere. I might proceed and shew, from the exchanges, that there is no foundation for his supposition, but if I am right in my view of the trade, this is proof enough.

If, therefore, the supposed advantage rests on that argument, it must be ideal. The other gentleman gives no distinct reason for his belief, but I trust both will revise these opinions before they act upon this theory. I am the more earnest they should do it, because they must know how injurious this measure is believed to be by the residue of the country.

They must know that trade and commerce cannot be carried on without the ordinary facilities. They cannot be ignorant of the present state of things. They must see in it the disastrous effect of the denial of the usual means. Why, then,

force this oppressive, injurious measure upon us? Are they willing to try new and blighting experiments, because it is possible they may operate less fatally upon the planting interest than the rest of the country?

But, sir, the senator from South Carolina calls it a states-right measure, or a measure, as I suppose, wholly southern and sectional in its character, and, therefore, it ought to be supported by the south. If it be the purpose of the senator to plant his little torn banner, of which he has spoken, on the ruins of the other interests of the country, I hope and believe his followers will not be numerous.

Can there be any possible advantage in cherishing one interest at the sacrifice of the others? Can it strengthen or harmonize the union to pursue a sectional policy, which, while it may by possibility be acceptable, and even beneficial to one section, produces discontent and injury to others?

Sir, this policy which the senators think useful to the planting interest, but in which opinion I have no confidence, denies to us a circulation adapted to the business we follow. It puts the banking power in the hands of the president, who is, I know, devoted to the planting interest, as the senator from North Carolina has asserted; but let him, and all others who aim at such advantages, remember that this interest, great, powerful, and influential as it is, may lose its preponderance, if it become thus selfish. The senators, I am aware, claim to be strict constitutionalists, clinging to the letter, and repudiating, often times, what seems to be necessary inferences from language. They deny the right to make internal improvements; the right to protect manufactures; and the power to give us a currency which will subserve the purposes of business. They oppose discriminations in trade in our favor and, as it appears to me, whatever seems to favor the agricultural, commercial, manufacturing, mechanical, and trading classes, and to give to them such scope as will invigorate and render them prosperous. I hope it is not from sectional feeling, antipathies, or selfishness that our rights and privileges are thus narrowed down, and the constitution made of little value to us.

I must be permitted to observe that the senator from South Carolina has, on many occasions, taken broader views of constitutional duty and public policy-even he, I find, can raise powers by implication.

When his resolutions were lately under discussion in the senate, he contended that slavery in this district could not be abolished, not because there was or is any provision in the deeds of cession inhibiting such a measure, for they are silent, but on the ground of an implied faith. He contends that it is fair, from the character of the subject, to presume that such must have been the understanding, and the hands of the United States are, therefore, as much tied by plighted faith as if bound by an express covenant. The senator, therefore, has no scruple, when we touch this interest, in raising the highest and most imperative obligations, by implication and construction. Again, I would take leave to remind him that a year has scarcely gone round since he declared here that he hoped, before congress adjourned, a foreign state would be annexed to and admitted into the union of these states. I hope he will not consider this reminiscence unkind; and I would ask him whether he can find any authority, express, implied, or constructive in the constitution for such a step? Nothing could have been more foreign to all the thoughts, motives, conceptions, and intentions of its framers, than the idea of making new states out of Mexico. It might as well be argued that they anticipated the annexation of Ireland. These are stretches of power, by implication and construction, such as we of the other section of the country on no occasion dare to contend for. We, for the great purpose of giving effect to the design of the constitution, contend that where there is a general power granted, congress have the functions necessary to execute that power, nothing more. We assert no right beyond this; but here we find the senator going for power which is neither directly granted, nor can it be derived or implied from any thing contained in the instrument.

Does the senator mean to give one rule of construction for our interests and another for his? Is the instrument to be forced to its narrowest limits in its application to

agriculture, trade, commerce, navigation, manufactures, and the operations of labor generally pertaining to these great interests? Are we to be denied even a currency for want of powers, while empires may be added to our geographical limits without shadow of authority.

Sir, let me entreat the senator and his friends not to drive us to the conclusion that his state-rights doctrines are hostile to all interests but that of planting; that a most latitudinous construction belongs to one end of the country and its particular interests, while they stick in the bark in giving contruction which affects the other interests! If his flag has achieved all the laurels he claims, has he not had enough of victory? He says he has triumphed over our industry, and his co-laborer, Mr. Brown, in his remarks the other day congratulated the country on the prospect, under the present policy, of banishing every manufactory from the country.

I hope, Mr. President, in their zeal for reform of the constitution and the business of the country they will not utterly rob us of a currency for the people. Sir, we have an inexpressible reluctance to go to an executive bank for paper. We have always looked with distrust upon power, and preferred claiming rights to supplication, and can never consent to be ruled by executive discretion. We shall make poor beggars, and therefore hoped to be spared the humiliation of being dependent on the president's favor for a business that will give us bread. Save us, then, from a bank around which, as a great central power, all business must either revolve or not move at all.

I hope the senator will do it for his own sake as well as ours. The planting interest, though banded as it is like a roman legion together, may not, if it pursues a selfish and oppressive policy, be always able to guide the destiny of the country. The tables may be turned upon it, and it may have ample time, under acts of retaliation provoked by such injustice, to repent of its folly.

Let us then adopt no such dangerous measures, try no such disastrous experiments. Let not the hopes of sectional advantage delude any one, for they will sow the seeds of bitterness and discontent; but let us march forward with the high, patriotic, enlightened spirit of freemen, firmly cementing, by a joint policy, the union together and carrying the constitution onward to the fulfilment of its great destiny.

[blocks in formation]

TO FACILITATE A PEACE BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES
AND MEXICO.

DELIVERED IN THE UNITED STATES SENATE, MARCH 1, 1847,

ALBANY ARGUS OFFICE :
1847.

« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »