discredit, and discountenance thrown upon all banks by the government. And why should these notes not be so received? They are as good as treasury notes, if not better. They answer all purposes of the State governments and the people. They now would buy as much as specie could have commanded at the period of suspension. They could be disbursed by the government. And, finally, the measure would be temporary.

But the true and only efficacious and permanent remedy, I solemnly believe, is to be found in a bank of the United States, properly organized and constituted. We are told that such a bank is fraught with indescrib able danger; and that the government must, in the sequel, get possession of the bank, or the bank of the government. I oppose to these imaginary terrors the practical experience of forty years. I oppose to them the issue of the memorable contest, commenced by the late President of the United States, against the late bank of the United States. The administration of that bank had been without serious fault. It had given no just offense to the government, toward which it had faithfully performed every financial duty. Under its able and enlightened president, it had fulfilled every an ticipation which had been formed by those who created it. President Jackson pronounced the edict that it must fall, and it did fall, against the wishes of an immense majority of the people of the United States; against the conviction of its utility entertained by a large majority of the States; and to the prejudice of the best interests of the whole country. If an innocent, unoffending, and highly beneficial institution could be thus easily destroyed by the power of one man, where would be the difficulty of crushing it, if it had given any real cause for just animadversion? Finally, I oppose to these imaginary terrors the example deducible from English history. There a bank has existed since the year 1694, and neither has the bank got possession of the government, nor the government of the bank. They have existed in harmony together, both conducing to the prosperity of that great country; and they have so existed, and so contributed, because each has avoided cherishing toward the other that wanton and unnecessary spirit of hostility which was unfortunately engendered in the bosom of the late President of the United States.

I am admonished, sir, by my exhausted strength, and by, I fear, your more exhausted patience, to hasten to a close. Mr. President, a great, novel, and untried measure is perseveringly urged upon the acceptance of Congress. That it is pregnant with tremendous consequences, for good or evil, is undeniable, and admitted by all. We firmly believe that it will be fatal to the best interests of this country, and ultimately subversive of its liberties. You, who have been greatly disappointed in other measures of equal promise, can only hope, in the doubtful and uncertain future, that its operation may prove salutary. Since it was first proposed at the extra session, the whole people have not had an opportunity of passing in judgment upon it at their elections. As far as they have, they have expressed their unqualified disapprobation. From Maine to the State of Mississippi,

its condemnation has been loudly thundered forth. In every intervening election, the administration has been defeated, or its former majorities neutralized. Maine has spoken; New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Ohio, Rhode Island, Mississippi, and Michigan; all these States, in tones and terms not to be misunderstood, have denounced the measure. The Key-stone State (God bless her) has twice proclaimed her rejection of it; once at the polls, and once through her Legislature. Friends and foes of the administration have united in condemning it. And, at the very mo ment when I am addressing you, a large meeting of the late supporters of the administration, headed by the distinguished gentleman who presided in the electoral college which gave the vote of that patriotic State to President Van Buren, are assembling in Philadelphia, to protest solemnly against the passage of this bill. Is it right that, under such circumstances, it should be forced upon a reluctant but free and intelligent people? Is it right that this Senate, constituted as it now is, should give its sanction to the measure? I say it in no disrespectful or taunting sense, but we are entitled, according to the latest expressions of the popular will, and in virtue of manifestations of opinion, deliberately expressed by State Legislatures, to a vote of thirty-five against the bill; and I am ready to enter, with any senator friendly to the administration, into details to prove the assertion. Will the Senate, then, bring upon itself the odium of passing this bill I implore it to forbear, forbear, forbear! I appeal to the instructed senators. Is this government made for us, or for the people, and the States whose agents we are? Are we not bound so to administer it as to advance their welfare, promote their prosperity, and give general satisfaction? Will that sacred trust be fulfilled, if the known sentiments of large and respectable communities are despised and condemned by those whom they have sent here? I call upon the honorable senator from Alabama (Mr. King), with whom I have so long stood in the public councils, shoulder to shoulder, bearing up the honor and the glory of this great people, to come now to their rescue. I call upon all the senators; let us bury deep and forever the character of the partisan, rise up patriots and statesmen, break the vile chains of party, throw the fragments to the winds, and feel the proud satisfaction that we have made but a small sacrifice to the paramount obligations which we owe to our common country.

ON THE DOCTRINE OF INSTRUCTION.

IN SENATE, JANUARY 14, 1839.

[THE following short speech, as will be seen, was delivered in consequence of instructions from the Legislature of North Carolina to their Senators in Congress, on the subject of the Expunging Resolution, which the senators voted for, and the Legislature disapproved. However some have maintained, that instructions of this kind should neither be given nor obeyed, there is, nevertheless, a solid ground for both in a representative government. The theory of such a government supposes that the representative is bound to carry out the will of his constituents; and of course that he starts on his mission with a virtual letter of instructions. His acceptance of the mission is an implied promise to obey its orders; and if unforeseen exigences arise, in any stage of the mission, there is as good reason for forwarding new instructions as for giving an original letter, and it is not easy to justify a disregard of the latest instructions.]

I COULD have wished that some other senator had thought proper to make the few observations that are called for by the present occasion; but as no one has risen for that purpose, and as the Legislature of North Carolina are on this subject here unrepresented, and as the propositions embraced in these resolutions have not a single sentiment with which I do not most heartily concur, I trust that I shall be indulged, while making a few remarks on this occasion; and I assure the senator from North Carolina last up, that nothing is further from my purpose than to do any injustice to him or his colleague; and I think it was a little unkind and gratuitous in him to say that he never expected to receive justice from his opponents.

The Legislature of North Carolina have been charged by gentlemen with using disrespectful language in these resolutions. But if their language was indecorous, the rules of the Senate prescribe it as their course of duty, that the resolutions ought not to have been submitted; for, as I understand those rules, it is the duty of every member, when he has a memorial or resolution to be presented, to see that they are couched in the proper language. But in what respect are these resolutions disrespectful

to the Senate, as I understood was charged by both senators from North Carolina?

[Mr. Strange said he made no allusion to disrespectful language.]

At least, Mr. Clay understood the other senator (Mr. Brown) to say that one of the resolutions was disrespectful to the Senate.

[Mr. Brown said he so spake of one of the resolutions, but he thought it his duty to his State to present them, notwithstanding, and in no possible contingency could he have refused to present them.]

Mr. Clay said, I so understood the senator, that one of the resolutions was disrespectful; but he now says, that, in deference to his Legislature, he still ought to present them. Sir, if there was indecorum in the language, I repeat, that it was his duty, under the rules of the Senate, not to present the resolutions at all.

[Mr. Brown said there was a very marked distinction between the Legislature of a sovereign State and individuals on this subject.]

I am not aware, said Mr. Clay, that there is any such distinction expressed in the rules; and if the Legislature of a State uses disrespectful language, it is no more to be received than if it were from a private citizen. But let that pass.

In what respect are these resolutions disrespectful? The Senate, two or three years ago, adopted a resolution, by a vote of the majority of the body, which resolution was afterward ordered to be expunged from the journal; and now the Legislature from North Carolina say that it was, in their opinion, an act of party servility to the national executive then in power. Now let us suppose that either branch of Congress had really been guilty of an act of party servility to the executive, have not legislative bodies a right to express it, in this or any other country? But whether that act was one of servility or not, is a question on which history will in due time pass its decision. But as I have said on every occasion, here and elsewhere, it was in my opinion derogatory to this body, and history will pronounce upon it the severest censure.

But the senators from North Carolina have both declared, that they would have obeyed these resolutions, if they had been mandatory in their language, instead of their being a simple expression of the will of their Legislature. But let us examine the nature and extent of this apology. What is the basis, and what the principle of the doctrine of instruction! Sir, to a certain extent, I have always believed in this doctrine, and have been ever ready to conform to it. But I hold to the doctrine as it stood in 1798; that, in general, on questions of expediency, the representative should conform to his instructions, and so gratify the wishes, and obey the will, of his constituents, though on questions of constitutionality his course might

be different; and, therefore, when the senator last up (Mr. Strange) declared that he would rather submit to a certain operation, than to give his vote declaring that there had been a violation of the Constitution, I felt some alarm, lest the true doctrine of instruction should itself be subverted. And it did not appear to occur to him at the time, that there was another alternative besides obeying-that is, to resign.

And what is the doctrine of instructions, as it is held by all? Is it not that we are to conform to the wishes of our constituents? Is it not that we are to act, not in our own, but in a delegated character? And will any who stand here, pretend, that whenever they know the wishes or will of those who sent them here, they are not bound to conform to that will entirely? Is it not the doctrine, that we are nothing more than the mirror to reflect the will of those who called us to our dignified office? That is the view which I take of the doctrine of instruction.

And I now ask, is any peculiar language necessary, other than that by which the will of our constituents may be understood and carried out? Is there but one word that will answer-no other word but the word instruct? Is there no other language tantamount to that? If the Legislature simply express their will, is that not equivalent to the word instruct? Nay, more, is it not more respectful to those receiving the instructions, to avoid, than to use the word instructions? Infinitely more so; and I am more ready to comply with the wishes of any one, if he speaks to me in a courteous and polite manner, than if he make use of mandatory language. Sir, I say to my man Charles, please to do so and so, and he does it instantly, and with much more pleasure, than if I was more peremptory. Suppose I should say, Charles, I instruct you; he would think it very curious language; but if I say, I would be obliged to you for my shoes or boots, he goes down and brings them as quick as possible. I assure the senators it is no purof mine to treat them with the smallest disrespect; on the contrary, pose I sympathize with them, and regret extremely that they can not conform to these resolutions, coming from so respectable a source as the Legislature of North Carolina. I should have been extremely happy if they could have conformed, and I believe the Constitution of North Carolina expressly provides for and secures the right of instruction, requiring the representatives of the people to conform and obey. And it appears to me, that if the Legislature have the right, and choose to give instruction, it is no matter in what words or language those instructions are given; and I should feel myself bound to conform to their wishes, thus communicated. But if the argument of the senior senator (Mr. Brown) from North Carolina is correct, even if the most positive language were used, as bas been done on two several occasions, and in my judgment now, I suppose if that were the case, he would not feel bound to obey the will of the Legislature, in opposition to what he might be pleased to consider the will of the people, which he would regard as the paramount authority.

But on one subject, at least, these resolutions speak in decisive language,