A Biography of Henry Clay, the Senator from Kentucky / Containing Also, a Complete Report of All His Speeches; Selections From His Private Correspondence; Eulogies in the Senate and House; and a Poem, by George D. Prentice, Esq.

by Unknown

I have been present, as a member of congress, on the occasion of the termination of the charters of both the banks of the United States; took part in the discussion to which they gave rise, and had an opportunity of extensively knowing the opinions of members; and I declare my deliberate conviction, that upon neither was there one third of the members in either house who entertained the opinion that congress did not possess the constitutional power to charter a bank.

But it is contended, that, however indispensable a bank of the United States may be to the restoration of the prosperity of the country, the president’s opinion against it opposes an insuperable obstacle to the establishment of such an institution.

It will, indeed, be unfortunate, if the only measure which can bring relief to the people should be prevented by the magistrate whose elevated station should render him the most anxious man in the nation to redress existing grievances.

The opinion of the president which is relied upon, is that contained in his celebrated letter to S. Williams, and that which is expressed in the message before us. I must say, with all proper deference, that no man, prior to, or after his election to the chiefmagistracy, has a right to say, in advance, that he would not approve of a particular bill, if it were passed by congress. An annunciation of such a purpose is premature, and contrary to the spirit, if not the express letter, of the constitution. According to that instrument, the participation of the president in the legislative power—his right to pass upon a bill—is subsequent, and not previous to, the deliberations of congress. The constitutional provision is, that, when a bill shall have passed both houses, it shall be presented to the president for his approval or rejection. His right to pass upon it results from the presentation of the bill, and is not acquired until it is presented. What would be thought of the judge who, before a cause is brought before the court, should announce his intention to decide in favor of a named party? Or of the senate, which shares the appointing power, if it should, before the nomination of a particular individual is made for an office, pass a resolution that it would not approve the nomination of that individual?

It is clear, that the president places his repugnance to a bank of the United States mainly upon the ground that the popular will has been twice ‘solemnly and unequivocally expressed’ against it. In this I think the president is mistaken. The two occasions to which he is understood to refer, are the election of general Andrew Jackson in 1832, and his own election in 1836. Now, as to the first, there was not, before it took place, any unequivocal expression of the opinion of the late president against a national bank. There was, in fact, a contrary expression. In the veto message, president Jackson admitted the public convenience of a bank; stated that he did not find in the renewed charter such modifications as could secure his approbation, and added, that if he had been applied to, he could have furnished the model of a bank that would answer the purposes of such an institution. In supporting his reëlection, therefore, the people did not intend, by the exercise of their suffrage, to deprive themselves of a national bank. On the contrary, it is within my knowledge, that many voted for him, who believed in the necessity of a bank quite as much as I do. And I am perfectly persuaded, that thousands and tens of thousands sustained his reëlection under the full expectation that a national bank would be established during his second term.

Nor, sir, can I think that the election of the present chief magistrate ought to be taken as evidence that the people are against a bank. The most that can be asserted is, that he was elected, the expression of his opinion in the letter to Mr. Williams notwithstanding. The question of the election of a chief magistrate is a complex question, and one of compensations and comparison. All his opinions, all his qualifications are taken into consideration, and compared with those of his competitors. And nothing more is decided by the people, than that the person elected is preferred among the several candidates. They take him as a man takes hiswife, for better or for worse, with all the good and bad opinions and qualities which he possesses. You might as well argue, that the election of a particular person to the chief magistracy implies that his figure, form, and appearance exhibit the standard of human perfection, as to contend that it sanctions and approves every opinion which he may have publicly expressed on public affairs. It is somewhat ungrateful to the people to suppose that the particular opinion of Mr. Van Buren in regard to a United States bank, constituted any, much less the chief recommendation of him to their suffrages. It would be more honorable to him and to them, to suppose that it proceeded from his eminent abilities, and his distinguished services at home and abroad. If we are to look beyond them and beyond him, many believe that the most influential cause of his election was the indorsement of that illustrious predecessor, in whose footsteps he stands pledged to follow.

No, sir, no; the simple and naked question of a bank or no bank of the United States was not submitted to the people, and ‘twice solemnly and unequivocally’ decided against by them. I firmly believe, that if such a question were now submitted to them, the response of a vast majority would be in the affirmative. I hope, however, that no bank will be established or proposed, unless there shall be a clear and undisputed majority of the people and of the states in favor of such an institution. If there be one wanted, and an unequivocal manifestation be made of the popular will that it is desired, a bank will be established. The president’s opposition to it is founded principally upon the presumed opposition of the people. Let them demonstrate that he is mistaken, and he will not separate himself from them. He is too good a democrat, and the whole tenor of his life shows that, whatever other divorces he may recommend, the least that he would desire, would be one between him and the people. Should this not prove to be the case, and if a majority should not exist sufficiently large to pass a bank charter in spite of the veto, the ultimate remedy will remain to the people to change their rulers, if their rulers will not change their opinions.

But during this debate it has been contended, that the establishment of a new bank of the United States would aggravate existing distresses; and that the opinion necessary to put it in operation could not be obtained without prejudice to the local banks.

What is the relief for which all hearts are now so anxiously throbbing? It is to put the banks again in motion; to restore exchanges, and revive the drooping business of the country. And, what are the obstacles? They are, first, the foreign debt; and, secondly, a want of confidence. If the banks were to reopen their vaults, it is apprehended that the specie would be immediately exported to Europe to discharge our foreign debt. Now, if a bank of the United States were established, with a suitable capital, the stock of that bank itself would form one of the best subjects of remittance; and an amount of it equal to what remains of theforeign debt would probably be remitted, retaining at home or drawing from abroad the equivalent in specie.

A great, if not the greatest existing evil is the want of confidence, not merely in the government, but in distant banks, and between the banks themselves. There is no tie or connection binding them together, and they are often suspicious of each other. To this want of confidence among the banks themselves, is to be ascribed that extraordinary derangement in the exchanges of the country. How otherwise can we account for the fact, that the paper of the banks of Mississippi cannot now be exchanged against the paper of the banks of Louisiana, without a discount on the former of ten or fifteen per centum; nor that of the banks of Nashville, without a discount of eight or ten per centum against the paper of the banks of the adjoining state of Kentucky? It is manifest, that, whatever may be the medium of circulation, whether it be inconvertible paper, or convertible paper and specie, supposing confidence to exist, the rates of exchange in both cases ought to be nearly the same. But, in times like these, no bank will allow its funds to accumulate, by the operations of exchange, at points where no present use can be made of them.