mode previously adopted by him to avoid the responsibility of rejecting bills, that he disapproved of, and that he would retain it until after the adjournment of Congress. To prevent this, the Senate declined acting on the resolution for an adjournment, until the bill had been sent to him for concurrence, and then the 16th of July was inserted, so as to leave ten full days, exclusive of Sundays, by which he was compelled to return the bill to Congress, or to permit it to become a law. Accordingly, the next day after the Senate had fixed the time of adjournment, a message was sent to that body, stating the reasons of the President for refusing his signature to the bill.

They are in substance as follows.

1st. That a monopoly is granted to the present stockholders, for which the bonus is not a fair equivalent.

2d. That more than one fifth of the stock is held by foreigners.

3d, Because the provision, enabling State banks to pay their balances in branch notes, is partial towards banking establishments at the expense of the community.

4th, Because the concession to the States, to tax the stock held by their own citizens, operates in favor of foreign stockholders, and makes the stock worth more to them, than to resident stockholders; and will render the American people debtors to aliens by vesting the stock in foreign hands.

5th, Because by the greater part of the stock going out of the country the control over the institution will

be vested in a few stockholders; and great evils are to be apprehended, by so formidable a power being concentrated in a small body, without responsibility to the people, and who, moreover, will be peculiarly accessible to be influenced by the foreign stockholders.

6th, Because the law creating a bank is not one of the necessary and proper means vested in Congress, to carry into effect its constitutional powers.

7th, Because the private business of the bank is exempted from State taxation.

8th. Because there are strong suspicions of gross abuse in the management of its affairs.

9th. Because the Executive was not consulted, as to the propriety, of the provisions of an act creating a bank, as an agent of one of its departments.

10th. Because the bank tended to increase the power of the rich, and to add to the artificial distinctions already existing in society.

For these reasons, which will be found at length in the Message, page 60, of the Appendix, the President returned the bill to the Senate, where it originated, for reconsideration.

The message having been read, Mr Webster moved, that the senate should proceed to re-consider the bill the next day. At the appointed hour, the bill being again brought under the consideration of the Senate, Mr Webster began to comment upon the contents of the Message.

The President, he said, so far from evading the question, had given a clear expression of his

own judgment, that, under no circumstances, now or hereafter, should his approbation ever be given to any bill for the renewal of the charter of the present bank, or for the constitution of any similar one.

It was now certain, that, without a change in the public councils, the charter of the bank of the United States would be suffered to expire, by its own limitation. Within three years and nine months, (the remainder of its term) arrangements would have to be made for calling in its debts, withdrawing its notes from circulation, and ceasing its operations. All this would have to be done within that period, for, although by its charter, provision was made for allowing it further time for the collection of its debts, &c, yet, after the expiration of its term, it can issue no new paper, nor answer any of the purposes of a bank of discount. He said it behooved all who were interested in public affairs, without exaggeration on the one side, or delusion on the other, to prepare themselves to meet the crisis. He then went on to show the great importance of the present question, more especially to the States connected with the waters of the Mississippi, within whose limits thirty millions of active capital had been furnished for business by the bank.

He drew a picture of the consequences likely to flow, from all this facility being withdrawn within four years, and of the deep distress, which must inevitably follow its withdrawal. To the people of the United States, he said,

it was now plainly put, whether, in one way, and in one way only, (for the message left no alternative) this evil was to be avoided. Mr W. then proceeded with some remarks upon the President's objections to the bill. The first, which he adverted to, was the objection to the application of the bank for the renewal of its charter, on the ground that it was pre

mature.

After adverting to the undoubted right of Congress to exercise a discretion as to the time, at which they would act upon this subject, he said it was neither Congress nor the bank that had first agitated the question: for that the executive had not only once, but twice, and thrice, called on Congress to act upon the subject. He argued, that it could not be premature, in 1832, to do that, which the President had invited them to do as far back as December, 1829. There was another point of view, in which, he said this remark might have been spared he meant in reference to those States of the Union extremely interested in this measure, and which had instructed their representatives, not only to vote for the renewal of the charter of the bank, but to vote for it now, at this present session. But, he added, why disguise the fact? This was a question, on which it was very interesting to all the people, to know what were the opinions of the public servants. The time had come, when the people had a right to know how their servants, from the highest to the lowest, intended to act up

on this matter. It was, therefore, proper, that the subject should be acted upon at the present session. The result proved it. No one could doubt, after reading this message, that the question had been agitated not a moment too early. The election of a chief magistrate was about to take place a doubt had existed as to what was the opinion of the present chief magistrate upon this subject; was it not fit, proper, and expedient, that that doubt should be resolved? In this view, the message, he said, so far from proving the application of the bank at this session to have been premature, carried on its face the proof of its being indispensable. The very fact of the constitutional objections of the President to the bank, and that, under his auspices, no such bank could ever be rechartered or created, demonstrated the necessity of action upon it at the present session. He touched, also, upon another suggestion of the message in relation to the prematurity of the application; which was, that it would be the fault of the bank, if its affairs were not wound up within the period of its charter. This, he said, would be impossible, unless the bank were governed by angels instead of men. If the interest paid by the people of the Western States was as heavy a drain upon them, as represented by the message; how much heavier a drain, he argued, would that be which, within four years, would draw from them, not only this interest, but the principal upon which the interest was paid? He enlarged upon the circum

stances of the Western country; which made money more valuable there than in the Atlantic States, and on the distress, which would be produced by withdrawing from them seven and a half millions of dollars a year, for which they were now paying but six per cent interest to the bank of the United States, upon the substitute for which capital, they would have to pay a much higher rate of interest.

Mr W. then proceeded to review the objections of a constitutional nature contained in the message, the different parts of which, he intimated, were evidently from different hands.

He maintained, that the argument drawn from precedent was decidedly in favor of the bank, instead of being against it.

For thirtysix years out of the fortythree, during which the government has been in being, a bank has existed, such as is now proposed to be continued. As early as 1791, after great deliberation, the first bank charter was passed by Congress, and approved by President Washington. It established an institution resembling in all things, which are now objected to, the present bank. This bank continued twenty years. In 1816, the present institution was established, and has been ever since in full operation. The power to create such an institution, has been contested in every mode known to our constitution. It has been discussed over and over again in Congress: it has been argued, and solemnly adjudged in the Supreme Court: every President except the pres

ent, has considered it a settled question many of the state legislatures have instructed their senators to vote for the bank: the tribunals of the states in every instance, have supported its constitutionality; and the general public opinion of the country has at all times given, and does now give its full sanction to the exercise of this power, as within the meaning of the constitution.

If this practice, of near forty years, these repeated exercises of the power, the solemn adjudication of the Supreme Court, with the concurrence and approbation of public opinion, do not settle the question, how is a question to be settled. These legislative precedents all assert, and maintain the power, and having been the law of the land for forty years, they settle the construction of the constitution, so far as it can be settled by legislative precedents.

But if the President thinks lightly of the authority of congress, in construing the constitution, he thinks more lightly of the authority of the Supreme Court. He asserts a right of individual judgment on constitutional questions, which is totally inconsistent with any proper administration of the government, or any regular execution of the laws.

Hitherto t has been supposed, that the final decision of constitutional questions, belonged to the supreme judicial tribunal. It is true, that each branch of the legislature has an undoubted right, in the exercise of its functions, to consider the constitutionality of the law, proposed to be passed.

This is part of its duty, and neither branch can be compelled to pass any law, which it deems to be beyond the reach of its constitutional power. The President has the same right, when a bill is presented for his approval. But when a law has been passed by Congress, and approved by the President, it is no longer in the power of that President, nor of his successors to say, whether the law is constitutional or not. He is not at liberty to disregard it to feel or to affect constitutional scruples, and to sit in judgment upon the validity of a statute of the government. The question of its constitutionality then becomes purely a judicial question, in the courts, that may be raised, argued and adjudged, but nowhere else.

The President is as much bound by the law, as any private citizen. He may refuse to obey it, and so may a private citizen, but both do it at their own peril, and neither of them can settle the question of its validity. The judiciary alone possess this unquestionable and hitherto unquestioned right. The judiciary is the constitutional tribunal of appeal, for the citizens, both against Congress and the Executive, in regard to the constitutionality of laws. It has this jurisdiction expressly conferred upon it, and when it has decided the question, its judgment must from its very nature, be conclusive. Hitherto this opinion, and a correspondent practice, have prevailed in this country. If it were otherwise, there would be no government of laws; but we should all live un

der the government, and caprice of individuals. If the reasoning of the message be correct, the President may refuse to put into execution one law, pronounced valid by all branches of the government, and yet execute another, which may have been by constitutional authority pronounced void. Upon the argument of the message, the President of the United States holds, under a new pretence, and a new name, a dispensing power over the laws, as absolute as was claimed by James the Second of England, a month before he was compelled to fly the kingdom. That which is now claimed for the President is in truth, nothing less and nothing else, than the old dispensing power asserted by the kings of England in the worst of times. After Congress has passed the law, and after the Supreme Court has pronounced its judgment on the very point in controversy, the President has set up his own private judgment against its constitutional interpretation. It is to be remembered, that it is the present law, it is the act of 1816, it is the present charter of the bank, which the President pronounces to be unconstitutional. It is no bank to be created, it is no law proposed to be passed, which he denounces; it is the law now existing, passed by Congress, approved by President Madison, and sanctioned by a solemn judgment of the supreme court, which he now declares unconstitutional, and which of course, so far as it may depend on him, cannot be executed. If these opinions of the President's be

maintained, there is an end of all law and all judicial authority. Statutes are but recommendations, judgments no more than opinions. Both are equally destitute of binding force. Such a universal power of judging over the laws and over the decisions of the tribunal, is nothing else than pure despotism. If conceded to him, it makes him at once, what Louis the Fourteenth proclaimed himself to be, when he said, 'I am the State.' If the reasoning of the message be well founded, it is clear, that the charter of the existing bank is not a law. The bank has no legal existence; it is not responsible to government; it has no authority to act; it is incapable of being an agent; the President may treat it as a nullity tomorrow; withdraw from it all the public deposites, and set afloat all the existing arrangements of revenue and finance. It is enough to state these monstrous consequences to show, that the doctrine, principles, and pretensions of the message, are entirely inconsistent with a government of laws. If that which Congress has enacted, and the Supreme Court has sanctioned, be not the law of the land, then the reign of law has ceased, and the reign of individual opinion has already begun.

What is called the monopoly,' is made the subject of repeated rehearsal, in terms of special complaint. By this monopoly,' I suppose, is understood, the restriction contained in the charter, that Congress shall not, during the twenty years, create another bank. Now, sir, let me ask,