Page images
PDF
EPUB

SEC. 28. And be it further enacted, That all acts or parts of acts which come in conflict with the provisions of this act be, and the same are hereby repealed. APPROVED, July 4th, 1840.

MR. WOODBURY'S SPEECH,

ON THE REPEAL OF THE INDEPENDENT TREASURY.

JUNE 9, 1841.

Mr. WOODBURY said: It was my misfortune, sir, to be in a minority on the committee which reported this bill. I have heard nothing since to weaken my objections to the repeal of what is called the Sub-treasury, but some things to strengthen them greatly. The die, however, is cast; the Sub-treasury must, I presume, be abolished. But I feel it due to my opinions, expressed in the committee, as well as to friends, and the importance of the question to the whole country, that the reasons for my opposition to this hasty and extraordinary change in a great system for managing the finances for the government, for the whole Union, should be publicly given. I am aware of the impatience felt by the majority for a decision, and shall, therefore, use all possible brevity.

It is difficult to comprehend the causes of so much haste in acting on the present subject. Why repeal what exists till some plan is presented instead of it? Let us have what you consider the bane and antidote before us at once. But, on the contrary, we are in this case asked to destroy an existing system, in full and successful operation, and which would continue to be so, if fairly administered, without expressly presenting any substitute whatWe pull down our present house, to use the simile of the senator who originated this measure, without a new one elsewhere to reside in, or even a shantee. No, sir, not even a log cabin for shelter till another house is

ever.

built. We thus depart, also, from legislative usage in all like cases. The act of June, 1836, in regulating the state bank system, did not repeal the former one till the new regulations could be provided and duly executed. So the sub-treasury act did not repeal the state bank system till the sub-treasury had time to be carried into full force. He challenged gentlemen to cite a precedent for any such rashness as the present. Even in 1816 the public funds were not forbidden to be kept as before, till the United States Bank was chartered and in full operation. We create, then, a sort of dictatorship as to the finances in the President or secretary of the treasury, till some new system is hereafter established by law. We leave the sacred funds of the public, in a period of profound peace, and with no emergency, no urgent necessity impending, to the arbitrary will or caprice of mere executive discretion.

There is no escape from the conclusion as to the lawless expediency which will then reign, unless, by mere construction, some other system is revived by this repeal. The repeal would be on its face uncertain, vague, loose. It cuts loose from the old moorings, and puts to sea with the whole public revenue, without rudder or compass. But it is said that much can be remedied by implication, by construction, by discretion. Then in abolishing the subtreasury, we abolish what is a system, well considered, and in full force, and we do this for one to exist by implication, and that may mean any thing or nothing, to suit those who administer it-one temporary, not certain in its character, gone into disuse, obsolete, impracticable, and which, if no better is devised immediately, may be fastened upon us for years as the law of the land. I know that repealing a repealing statute, according to an old technical principle, well settled in Blackstone, Bacon, and Coke, revives in force the act existing before the first repeal. We shall have, then, apparently, the act of January, 1836; and bad and impracticable in many respects as that act is admitted by many of them to be, they would justify their course in reviving it, by the apology, that a better system can and will soon be substituted for it.

[blocks in formation]

But are there not more enemies to the sub-treasury, than friends to any particular successor? Can all who vote against the former, unite in favor of a bank like the last United States Bank? Or will all take a fiscal agent, not a bank, and which so many of them have heretofore denounced? Again: will all unite in any improvement of the act of 1836? We know to the contrary; and thus, with the best intentions soon to have some different system, except what will spring up constructively after a simple repeal of the sub-treasury, the country may never get one. Look at the experience on these hopes and good intentions in this very Senate. Last March, we were in such haste to get a public printer acceptable to the majority, that it was deemed necessary, so as to organize, to remove Messrs. Blair and Rives, though fairly chosen, and regular contractors under bond, without their assent, and without a hearing or trial. Yet we are now in the second week of another session, and no successors to them have been chosen, or attempted to be chosen. Did gentlemen at that time dream of such extraordinary delay? The improved officers, the reform and new organization which was so indispensable then as not to be delayed scarce a day, strangely remains yet unaccomplished. Gentlemen may find troubles, and family schisms and procrastination as to the new fiscal agent they intend soon to create, which may lead to even longer delay than has occurred in the appointment of new printers.

In the mean time, this body and the Union may be subjected to the discretion of the President of the United States and the secretary of the treasury in keeping and disbursing the public money, and which the Senate has been subjected to in its chief officers since last March, in respect to its public printing. We have been too often, of late years, forced into this condition of mere construction. Who has done our printing since, and at what price? and by whose direction, and under what law? Nobody, nobody, sir, except under the arbitrary will of our president pro tem. and our secretary. Exercised that will may have been discreetly, and doubtless with good intention; but under what law, what constitution, or what

printed rule? Are we then to be governed by star chamber commissions or state circulars? Gentlemen felt much more jealous and sensitive on these subjects of unlimited discretion in 1836, it seems, than now; and the union of the purse and sword, which was then the burden of daily denunciation-that very union they are, by this precipitate repeal, as I shall endeavor soon to demonstrate, they are forewarned, and deliberately, voting to produce. Yes; to produce it for a time, they cannot but admit; and for months, if not years, all will concede is possible, if not probable. To accomplish this union, what is proposed to be previously done?

Independent of the unprecedented manner, what is the substance of our action to be on this occasion? What kind of a system do we abolish-and why? And what kind of a system do we virtually substitute for it? Even for a day, or an hour, as the gentleman from Virginia said yesterday, we should not uselessly leave the public funds to discretion. Is it for the mere whim of changechange-change-and change also for the worse, that we must pass the repeal, and the repeal of a great measure affecting millions of people, and millions on millions of the public treasure?

What are the reasons, then, for action upon it? Why, forsooth, the mover of the measure says no reason need be given. It is a case already decided. The people have returned a verdict against the sub-treasury, and we have come here merely to enter up judgment against the sub-treasury system and its friends.

If this be our position in fact, I hope we shall have the benefit of that gentleman's experience, as well as sympathy, since in 1828, on the same theory of reasoning, the people returned a verdict against a former administration, of which he was a distinguished member. But will he admit now, or did he then admit, that the election settled all the points in discussion before the people, and that a verdict was returned against him and them on all these points? Far from it. We were sent here to examine, to reason, and to decide ourselves on reasons and facts, and not on fancied verdicts.

We came here to do a great public act on behalf of

seventeen millions of people and twenty-six states of this Union. Ought they to do this without duly considering what was the duty required of them? And what must

be the effect of their act, whether that effect were temporary or permanent? Without this, they could not act discreetly in abolishing an important existing system. Mr. W. would readily admit, as some gentlemen had suggested, that there had been much talk against the subtreasury, and some arguments during the presidential canvass. It had been greatly abused and grossly misrepresented, but he was not prepared to admit that there had been any verdict of the people against it. Was the repeal or the continuance of this law the only issue made before the people at the late election? Was the result of that election a verdict on that issue alone, and not on others? The senator from Kentucky had, to be sure, said that they came here for judgment-to carry into execution the verdict of the American people; but he would ask that senator again whether the result of that election was to be held as a decision by the people on all the questions which had been discussed before them? If so, how did it happen that they were sitting here in this splendid hall, lighted by the magnificent and costly candelabra, and other splendid decorations now before them? Had it not been decided that there should be no extravagances of this kind, with all its unavoidable expenditure? that gentlemen must not eat out of gold spoons, but must use horn? that the President must live in a log-cabin, and not in a palace? ride on a pony, and not in a coach? that they must not indulge themselves in the luxury of champagne, but must drink only hard cider? Did not the verdict of the people cover all that? It was easy for gentlemen to talk about issues being decided by elections, but he asked, what had been the issue in 1828, and what had been the verdict given then?

The senator had had some experience in such matters, then, as before suggested. Did he believe that the people had passed a verdict on all the questions which had been mooted during that election? No; nor did Mr. W. They had different questions argued then; they had the question about soda water furnished at public expense,

« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »