Part 26 (1/2)

The power of the VETO is exercised, not as an extraordinary, but as an ordinary power; as a coress not acceptable to the executive We hear, one day, that the President needs the advice of no cabinet; that a few secretaries, or clerks, are enough for him The next, we are informed that the Supreme Court is but an obstacle to the popular will, and the whole judicial departovernment And while, on one side, the judicial power is thus derided and denounced, on the other arises the cry, ”Cut down the Senate!” and over the whole, at the sas of conscious party strength and party triu to the victors This condition of things, Sir, this general and obvious aspect of affairs, is the result of three years' administration, such as the country has experienced

But, not resting on this general view of results, let me inquire what the principles and policy of the ad interests of the country, subordinate to the Constitution itself And first, what are its principles, and what its policy, respecting the tariff? Is this great question settled, or unsettled? And is the present adainst, the tariff?

Sir, the question is wholly unsettled, and the principles of the ad to its most recent avowal of those principles, are adverse to the protective policy, decidedly hostile to the whole systeed constitutional grounds

In the first place, nothing has been done to settle the tariff question

The anti-tariff ress who voted for the late law have, none of them, said they would adhere to it On the contrary, they supported it, because, as far as it went, it was reduction, and that hat they wished; and if they obtained this degree of reduction now, it would be easier to obtain a greater degree hereafter; and they frankly declared, that their intent and purpose was to insist on reduction, and to pursue reduction, unreht down to one general and equal percentage, and that regulated by the mere wants of the revenue; or, if different rates of duty should remain on different articles, still, that the whole should be laid for revenue, and revenue only; and that they would, to the utmost of their power, push this course, till protection by duties, as a special object of national policy, should be abandoned altogether in the national councils It is a delusion, therefore, Sir, to iround It covers not an inch that has not been fought for, and ht for It stands while its friends can protect it, and not an hour longer

In the next place, in that coe, the whole principle of the protective policy is plainly and pointedly denounced

Having gone through its arguainst the bank charter, as it now exists, and as it has existed, either under the present or a for added to the well-doubted logic of that argue array of opprobrious epithets, the e, in unveiled allusion to the protective policy of the country, holds this language:--

”Most of the difficulties our governers which i froovernislation, and the adoption of such principles as are embodied in this act Many of our rich men have not been content with equal protection and equal benefits, but have besought us to ratify their desires, we have, in the results of our legislation, arrayed section against section, interest against interest, and ainst man, in a fearful commotion which threatens to shake the foundations of our Union It is time to pause in our career, to review our principles, and, if possible, revive that devoted patriotises of the Revolution and the fathers of our Union If we cannot at once, in justice to interests vested under iht to be, we can at least take a stand against all new grants of ainst any prostitution of our government to the advancement of the few at the expense of the radual reform in our code of laws and system of political economy”

Here, then, we have the whole creed Our national legislature has abandoned the legitiovernment It has adopted such principles as are embodied in the bank charter; and these principles are elsewhere called objectionable, odious, and unconstitutional All this has been done, because rich overnress It is time to pause in our career It is time _to review these principles_ And if we cannot at once MAKE OUR GOVERNMENT WHAT IT OUGHT TO BE, we can, at least, take a stand against new grants of power and privilege

The plainlaws are founded in an abandonovernreat source of our difficulties; that it is time to stop in our career, to review the principles of these laws, and, as soon as we can, MAKE OUR GOVERNMENT WHAT IT OUGHT TO BE

No one can question, Mr President, that these paragraphs, from the last official publication of the President, show that, _in his opinion, the tariff, as a systened for protection, is not only impolitic, but unconstitutional also_ They are quite incapable of any other version or interpretation They defy all explanation, and all glosses

Sir, however we may differ from the principles or the policy of the administration, it would, nevertheless, somewhat satisfy our pride of country, if we could ascribe to it the character of consistency It would be grateful if we could contemplate the President of the United States as an identical idea But even this secondary pleasure is denied to us In looking to the published records of executive opinions, sentiainst protection either come confusedly before us, at the same moment, or else follow each other in rapid succession, like the shadows of a phantase, containing the statement of _present opinions_, allow e of 1830 It will be perceived, that in that e both the clear constitutionality of the tariff laws, and their indispensable policy, are ument on the constitutional point is stated with more than common ability; and the policy of the laws is affir the deepest andof iiti of the necessity of pausing in our career and reviewing our principles; nothing of the necessity of changing our governht to be_ But let the e speak for itself

”The power to ied to the several States The right to adjust those duties with a view to the encouragement of domestic branches of industry is so completely incidental to that power, that it is difficult to suppose the existence of the one without the other The States have delegated their whole authority over iovern the very inconsiderable reservation relating to their inspection laws This authority having thus entirely passed froht to exercise it for the purpose of protection does not exist in theovernment, it must be extinct Our political system would thus present the anoht to foster their own industry, and to counteract the ht be adopted by foreign nations This surely cannot be the case; this indispensable power, thus surrendered by the States, must be within the scope of the authority on the subject expressly delegated to Congress

”In this conclusion I aton, Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe, who have each repeatedly recoht under the Constitution, as by the uniforress, the continued acquiescence of the States, and the general understanding of the people

”I am well aware that this is a subject of so much delicacy, on account of the extended interests it involves, as to require that it should be touched with the utmost caution; and that, while an abandoninated, a policy coeval with our governh successive administrations, is neither to be expected nor desired, the people have a right to demand, and have demanded, that it be so modified as to correct abuses and obviate injustice”

Mr President, no one needs to point out inconsistencies plain and striking as these The e of 1830 is a ritten paper; it proceeded, probably, froe of 1832 proceeded, I know not; perhaps from the cabinet improper

But, Sir, there is an important record of an earlier date than 1830 If, as the President avers, we have been guilty of iress is theinstance of that improvidence?

Certainly it is the act of 1824 The principle of protection, repeatedly recognized before that tireat extent; so new and so great, that the act was considered as the foundation of the systeuished citizen, whose no has received with so much enthusiasm, (Mr Clay,) the appellation of the ”Author of the Aly, the act of 1824 has been the particular object of attack, in all the warfare waged against the protective policy If Congress ever abandoned legitiislation in favor of protection, it did so by that law If any la on the statute-book, or which ever were there, show, by their character as laws of protection, that our governht to be altered, and, in the language of the veto ht to be, the law of 1824 is the very lahich, ood that assertion And yet, Sir, the President of the United States, then a Senator in Congress, voted for that law! And, though I have not recurred to the journal, my recollection is, that, as to some of its provisions, his support was essential to their success It will be found, I think, that some of its enactments, and those now most loudly complained of, would have failed, but for his own personal support of theht have been hoped that there would be, in 1832, some tolerance of opinion toward those who cannot think that iislation, a desire to gratify the rich, who have besought Congress to make them still richer, and the adoption of principles unequal, oppressive, and odious, are the true characteristics to be ascribed to the system of protection

But, Sir, it is but a small part of my object to show inconsistencies in executive opinions My main purpose is different, and tends to more practical ends It is, to call the attention of the , and of the people, to the principles avowed in the latethe President's _present opinions_, and proofs of _his present purposes_, and to the consequences, if they shall be maintained by the country These principles are there expressed in language which needs no coainst the fundaainst the constitutional power of Congress to establish and maintain that system, in whole or in part The question, therefore, of the tariff, the question of every tariff, the question betweeninterests where they now are, and breaking up the entire systee of it from the statute book, is a questionelection

The President has exercised his NEGATIVE power on the law for continuing the bank charter Here, too, he denies both the constitutionality and the policy of an existing law of the land It is true that the law, or a similar one, has been in operation nearly forty years Previous Presidents and previous Congresses have, all along, sanctioned and upheld it The highest courts, and indeed all the courts, have pronounced it constitutional A reater than exists on alrees with all the Presidents, all the Congresses, and all the courts of law Yet, against all this weight of authority, the President puts forth his own individual opinion, and has negatived the bill for continuing the law Which of the members of his administration, or whether any one of them, concur in his sentiments, we know not Some of them, we know, have recently advanced precisely the opposite opinions, and in the strongest ress the continuation of the bank charter Having hiress to the subject, and his Secretary of the Treasury--who, and all the other secretaries, as the President's friends say, are but so ress, at this very session, insisted both on the constitutionality and necessity of the bank, the President nevertheless saw fit to negative the bill, passed, as it had been, by strong majorities in both Houses, and passed, without doubt or question, in compliance with the wishes of a vastthe constitutional power of Congress to establish a bank, I shall not here discuss On that, as well as on the general expediency of renewing the charter, my opinions have been elsewhere expressed They are before the public, and the experience of every day confirms me in their truth All that has been said of the embarrass the bank falls far short of an adequate representation What was prophecy only two o is already history

In this part of the country, indeed, we experience this distress and eree The loans of the bank are not so highly important, or at least not so absolutely necessary, to the present operations of our commerce; yet we ourselves have a deep interest in the subject, as it is connected with the general currency of the country, and with the cheapness and facility of exchange

The country, generally speaking, ell satisfied with the bank Why not let it alone? No evil had been felt from it in thirty-six years Why conjure up a troop of fancied e struggles to excite prejudices, froners are stockholders; and on this ground it raises a loud cry against a , Sir, be conceivedood statesh, coland, the actual value of money is no more than three, or perhaps three and a half, per cent