and to consolidate all power in the General Government, which never was designed nor intended by the framers of the Constitution. Your committee are also of opinion, that the acts of the General Government, in providing for the general welfare, must be general in their operation, and promotive of the general good; not the advancement of the interest of any particular section or local interest, to the injury of another.

The term general welfare implies, clearly, that the means used to obtain this end must be general in their nature and tendency. Any measures, therefore, having for their object sectional advantages or local interests, to the prejudice of another portion of the community, cannot be general, and are, therefore, contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution.

It is believed by your committee, therefore, that the tariff laws of the United States, so far as they have for their object the protection of a particular branch of labor, to the injury of the commercial interest of the country, and of the agricultural interest of the Southern States, are unconstitutional.

For the same reason, Congress have not the right to appropriate the moneys of the United States for the improvement or benefit of a particular section of the country, in which all the States would not have a common interest and equal benefit.

If Congress is invested with the right at all, she is invested to an unlimited and indefinite extent, and may exhaust the whole wealth and treasure of the Government in the promotion of the improvement and interest of particular sections of the country, to the injury of another. In fine, that she may make one portion of the country tributary to another; that she may tax the community to enrich or aggrandize a particular section, and make the general welfare yield to a particular interest.

But if it be true, as your committee maintain, that the Congress of the United States are restricted to the powers expressly enumerated, it is equally true that they have no power or right to pass any laws but such as may be necessary and proper to carry into effect the powers enumerated, and which promote the general welfare of the United States.

In relation to the right of Congress to interfere, either directly or indirectly, with the subject of slavery, as recognized by the laws of this State, your committee deem it improper and unnecessary to enter into a discussion.

This State never can, and never will, so far compromit her interests on a subject of such deep and vital concern to her selfpreservation, as to suffer this question to be brought into discussion. Non-interference on this subject was the sine qua non on the part of the slave-holding States, in forming the Union and. entering into the Federal Compact. As the Southern States would then, so they must now, or hereafter, consider any attempt to interfere with this delicate subject an aggression, as having a tendency to produce revolt and insurrection of the most hideous character.

These States must view with jealousy and distrust all associations having for their object the abolition of slavery. The principles propagated by the enthusiastic devotees of this project are calculated to have the most pernicious effects - exciting false hopes of liberty; producing discontent and dissatisfaction in the mind of the otherwise happy and contented slave, and a restlessness for emancipation, when the actual state of things forbids the possibility of it at present.

The Colonization Society is considered by your committee as one of a dangerous character in this respect. Its schemes of colonization are vain and visionary. Its professed objects never can be accomplished: they are wholly impracticable. This institution, therefore, should not, in the opinion of your committee, receive the support, countenance, or patronage of Congress; and not being a matter of national interest, the Government has no right to take it under its protection, or make appropriations for its support. Your committee therefore recommend the adoption of the following resolutions:

Resolved, That this Legislature concur with the Legislature of the State of South Carolina, in the resolutions adopted at their December session in 1827, in relation to the powers of the General Government and State rights.

Resolved, That his Excellency the Governor be requested to transmit copies of this preamble and resolutions to the Governors of the several States, with a request that the same be laid before the Legislatures of their respective States; and also to our Senators and Representatives in Congress, to be by them laid before Congress for consideration.

No. 46. The Bank Controversy: Jackson's First Annual Message

December 8, 1829

THE charter of the Bank of the United States did not expire until 1836, three years after the close of the term for which Jackson had been elected; it was probable, however, that the bank would make early application for a renewal of its privileges. Jackson undoubtedly sympathized with those who feared the political and economic power of a great financial monopoly; the controversy involving the branch bank at Portsmouth, N. H., however, was probably the occasion for beginning his attack on the bank, which he did in his first annual message, transmitted to Congress Dec. 8, 1829. In the House this portion of the message was referred to the Committee of Ways and Means, which made an elaborate report April 13, 1830, through McDuffie of South Carolina, sustaining the bank. May 10 resolutions offered by Potter of North Carolina, against paper money and the bank, and against the renewal of the charter, were, by a vote of 89 to 66, laid on the table. May 26 Wayne of Georgia submitted resolutions calling on the Secretary of the Treasury for a great variety of information about the conduct and business of the bank; on the 29th these were disagreed to. In the Senate the Committee on Finance, through Smith of Maryland, reported, March 29, against any change in the currency.

REFERENCES. Text of the message in House and Senate Journals, 21st Cong., Ist Sess.; the extract here given is from the House Journal, 27, 28. For the discussions, see Cong. Debates, VI. McDuffie's report is printed as House Rep. 358; it is also in Cong. Debates, VI., part II., appendix, 104-133. Smith's report is Senate Rep. 104. Documents connected with the Portsmouth branch controversy are collected in Niles's Register, XXXVII., XXXVIII.; Ingham's "Address," in his own defence, is in ib., XLII., 315, 316. The bank controversy as a whole is treated at length in all larger histories of the period, and in biographies of leading statesmen of the time. Niles's Register, XXXVII.-XLV., gives invaluable documentary material. Benton's Abridg ment, X.-XII., gives full reports of debates; the same author's Thirty Years' View, I., is also of great value. See further, on the general subject, the lives of Jackson by Parton and Sumner; J. Q. Adams's Memoirs, VIII., IX,' passim; Johnston, in Lalor's Cyclopædia, I., 201-203; Bolles's Financial History of the United States, II, 317-358; Burgess's Middle Period, chaps. 9 and 12. Significant extracts from documents are given in Amer. History Leaflets, No. 24.

The charter of the Bank of the United States expires in 1836, and its stockholders will most probably apply for a renewal of their privileges. In order to avoid the evils resulting from precipitancy in a measure involving such important principles, and such deep pecuniary interests, I feel that I cannot, in justice to the parties interested, too soon present it to the deliberate consideration of

the Legislature and the People. Both the constitutionality and the expediency of the law creating this Bank are well questioned by a large portion of our fellow-citizens; and it must be admitted by all, that it has failed in the great end of establishing a uniform and sound currency.

Under these circumstances, if such an institution is deemed essential to the fiscal operations of the Government, I submit to the wisdom of the Legislature whether a national one, founded upon the credit of the Government and its revenues, might not be devised, which would avoid all constitutional difficulties; and, at the same time, secure all the advantages to the Government and country that were expected to result from the present Bank.

Debate on Foot's Resution
1830

DECEMBER 29, 1829, Senator Foot of Connecticut submitted a resolution instructing the Committee on Public Lands "to inquire into the expediency of limiting, for a certain period, the sales of the public lands, to such lands only as have heretofore been offered for sale, and are subject to entry at the minimum price; and, also, whether the office of Surveyor General and Surveyors may not be abolished without detriment to the public interest." The motion was taken up J 13, 1830, and, as amended by Foot Jan. 20, was before the Senate until May 21, when it was laid on the table. The discussion covered a wide range of topics, the resolution itself, as Webster said, being almost the only subjet not considered; the chief interest of the debate, however, lay in the discussion of the nature of the Union, by Webster and Hayne. The resoluon was taken as an indication of hostility on the part of the East, and particularly New England to the development of the West; and the South, bitterly opposed to the tariff of 1828, which it regarded as a sectional measure, was ready to join with the West in resisting any supposed attempt by the East > to control the national policy. Benton, in a speech Jan. 18, charged New England with "jealousy of the West and a desire to retard its growth." Hayne followed on the 19th with a speech in the same vein. On the 20th Webster replied to Hayne, defending New England against the charge of opposition to the West. On the 21st Hayne began a reply to Webster, concluded on the 25th, in the course of which he expounded with approval the doctrines of State rights and nullification. Webster's reply to Hayne, on the 26th and 27th, enforced the national view of the Constitution, and compelled Hayne to declare his position more plainly; this he did on the 27th in a speech in reply to Webster. Brief concluding remarks by Webster closed this portion of the "great debate." The extracts here given are from the speeches of Jan. 26 and 27. REFERENCES. - Text in Cong. Debates, 21st Cong., 1st Sess., VI., Part I., 58-93, passim. The debate is also in Niles's Register, XXXVII., XXXVIII.,

and Benton's Abridgment, X. Webster's speech is in his Works (ed. 1857), III., 248-347. The political doctrines of Webster and Hayne, and the effects of the speeches, are discussed at length in general histories of the period. See also Curtis's Life of Webster, I., chap. 16; Benton's Thirty Years' View, I., chap. 44; Edward Everett, in North Amer. Rev., XXXI., 462-546; Sargent's Public Men and Events, I., 169-175; Johnston, in Lalor's Cyclopædia, II., 234, 235.

No. 47.

Webster's Reply to Hayne

January 26 and 27, 1830

There yet remains to be performed, [said Mr. W.] by far the most grave and important duty, which I feel to be devolved on me, by this occasion. It is to state, and to defend, what I conceive to be the true principles of the constitution under which we are here assembled.

I understand the honorable gentlenian from South Carolina to maintain, that it is a right of the State Legislatures to interfere, whenever, in their judgment, this Government transcends its constitutional limits, and to arrest the operation of its laws.

I understand him to maintain this right, as a right existing under the constitution; not as a right to overthrow it, on the ground of extreme necessity, such as would justify violent revolution.

I understand him to maintain an authority, on the part of the States, thus to interfere, for the purpose of correcting the exercise of power by the General Government, of checking it, and of compelling it to conform to their opinion of the extent of its powers.

I understand him to maintain that the ultimate power of judging of the constitutional extent of its own authority is not lodged exclusively in the General Government, or any branch of it; but that, on the contrary, the States may lawfully decide for them-. selves, and each State for itself, whether, in a given case, the act of the General Government transcends its power.

I understand him to insist that, if the exigency of the case, in the opinion of any State Government, require it, such State Government may, by its own sovereign authority, annul an act of the General Government, which it deems plainly and palpably unconstitutional.

This is the sum of what I understand from him to be the South Carolina doctrine; and the doctrine which he maintains. I propose to consider it, and compare it with the constitution. . .

What he contends for, is, that it is constitutional to interrupt