SENATE.] Appropriation Bill-Origin of Book Purchases for Members. the usual course to call a conference. If the Senate were now to agree to a motion to adhere, would not the bill be lost in the event of disagreement on the part of the House? [Mr. WEBSTER "Certainly."] He would then oppose this motion, as he did not see any thing in the clause introduced by the House which ought to excite opposition. Mr. WEBSTER rose merely to answer that point in the argument of the Senator from Alabama which attributed to him (Mr. W.) an intention to offer disrespect to the House. He had looked into this matter before he submitted his motion, and, on examining the precedents, had found that a similar motion had been made, in this stage, by many distinguished persons, and inter alias, by the gentleman from Alabama himself, on a question of great public interest. In reference to the relative rights of the two Houses over their own contingent fund, he considered this clause as not being in true taste. If the Senate believe they have the control of their own contingent fund, they should say so. The very nature of the contingent fund looked to other objects than such as were specified. Otherwise, there could be no contingency about it. Mr. WEBSTER presented the proceedings of a public meeting held in the town of New Bedford, in the State of Massachusetts. (JANUARY, 1834, | from absolute ruin. In many places numerous workmen have been thrown out of employ, not only in the manufacturing establishments, but in the mines of some of the Middle States. Indeed, if the information of this morning is correct, one of these States had suffered a great disappointment, in failing to receive the instalments on its loans according to contract, and was obliged to take other measures for supplying the means of carrying on its public works. MONDAY, January 27. Distress Petition. Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN presented a petition from a number of citizens of Newark, New Jersey, praying that the deposits of the public moneys may be restored to the Bank of the United States. [On presenting the memorial, Mr. F. accompanied it with a speech, in which he said it was signed by 1,341 of the citizens of Newark, comprising fourfifths of the business population, now reduced to the deepest pecuniary distress by the removal of the deposits, and praying their restoration.] General Appropriation Bill-Contingent Expenses of the two Houses-Purchase of Books for Members. Mr. WEBSTER, from the Committee of Managers appointed on the part of the Senate, to confer with the Managers of the House of Representatives on the subject-matter of the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the second amendment to the appropriation bill, made a report as follows: "The managers appointed by the Senate to meet the managers on the part of the House of Representatives, in conference, on the subject of the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the second amendment of the Senate to the bill, entitled 'An act making appropriations, in part, for the support of Government for the year 1834,' report two Houses have come to an agreement upon the matter in difference. They have agreed to recommend to their respective Houses the following amendment to the bill, viz. : Mr. W. said that New Bedford had been one of the most prosperous and fast-growing towns in Massachusetts. Its citizens were engaged in a most useful, hardy, and adventurous commerce, in which they had met with much suc"That they have met the managers on the part cess; and, three months ago, their condition of the House of Representatives, and have held a was flourishing and happy; but a sudden and free conference with them upon the difference exmost extensive reverse has happened to it.isting between the two Houses, and have the pleasThirty or forty failures are said to have hap-ure to inform the Senate that the managers of the pened, and great pressure and distress prevail. feel it my duty, said Mr. W., to present these things to the consideration of the Senate. If there can be either any faith in men's statements, or if facts be any proof, the pressure, so far from diminishing, is increasing. While we are talking about the danger of the moneyed aristocracy of the bank, a state of things is suffered to exist which is a perfect carnival to the real money aristocracy, if there be any such thing in the country. Capitalists holding up their money for such enormous rates of interest, and being able to command such rates, shows what sacrifices are made by industrious men, of small capital, to protect themselves "Strike out all the bill from the 16th line of the printed bill, inclusive, and insert— "And be it further enacted, That, hereafter, neither the Senate nor House of Representatives shall subscribe for or purchase any book, unless an apand the sum of five thousand dollars is hereby appropriation shall be made specially for that purpose, propriated, to be paid out of any money in the treasury not otherwise appropriated, annually, for the purchase of books for the Library of Congress, in addition to the sum of five thousand dollars heretofore usually appropriated for that purpose. “And be it further enacted, That all books already purchased, or ordered by either House, shall be paid for out of any money in the treasury not otherwise appropriated." Removal of the Deposits. The Chair announced the special order, being the report of the Secretary of the Treasury, on the removal of the deposits; when Mr. FORSYTH said: Both the resolutions of the Senator from Kentucky are objectionable, in form and substance. They are censorial, not corrective; vindictive, not legislative. They strike at a supposed offender-they offer no redress for the asserted injury. They are justly exposed to all the reprehension of the Senator from Missouri. The first resolution can be defended on but one ground-the right of the Senate, by the expression of its opinions, to appeal to the people, to control the exercise of power by the elective franchise-a call upon the people to awaken from a false security, and rescue their endangered prosperity from the hands of a corrupt, improvident, or unwise administration. Occasions for such expressions of opinion are of rare occurrence. They cannot be made with any show of justification when the legislative power of Congress is ample to correct the existing, to avert the coming evil. Is it pretended that the power of Congress is not ample to redress this imputed wrong? If the act done is corrupt in the Chief Magistrate or Secretary, impeach and punishif they have acted unwisely, but not corruptly, legislate and control them. The deposits have been removed from the United States Bank. The Secretary of the Treasury has told us that, in the exercise of the power given to him by the charter, he has decided that time and circumstances required him to perform the act. The President approves the act. He has done more: he urged the former Secretary of the Treasury to perform it. In my judgment the disposition of the deposits is neither the primary nor preliminary, but a dependent question. Changing the place of collecting eight or nine millions of dollars can be of no great consequence in its effects on the business or currency of the country. The most enlightened of the friends of the bank admit, that, of itself, the order of the Secretary has not produced, or ought not to have produced serious embarrassments in the systems of credit or exchange. The derangement, the pressure in the moneyed transactions of the commercial cities, proceed from the act of the bank, which wants to ascertain what is to be its fate. Is the charter to expire in 1836, or to be renewed? If the charter is not be renewed, a change in the place of deposits was a thing of course, and certainly there can be no ground for clamorous complaints at the performance of an act now, which must be performed at no distant day. The time chosen for changing the place of the Government deposits has been a subject of reprehension; it was done, Senators say, but [SENATE. two months before Congress met. Had I been an adviser of the President, I should have recommended delay. I should have said to him, I believe that the people have decided against a bank; that the majority of the repesentatives of the people, elected under the new census, bringing with them the popular sentiment, will record that judgment; but I advise you not to take it for granted that you understand the opinions of the House of Representatives. It is possible that the people may have continued you in place, and yet desire the continuance of the institution; wait until a vote of the House of Representatives renders their opinion not a matter of argument, but of undisputed and indisputable fact. The President has chosen to act upon the strong presumption afforded by the result of his own, and of the other popular elections. His justification depends upon the establishment of the fact presumed. But what right have we to complain? The course of the Senate was not misunderstood. Had it been, would it have been criminal in the President, or in the Secretary of the Treasury, to believe, and to act on the belief, that changes of opinion regarding the bank had been wrought here by changes in the State Governments? Can it be matter of supposition what are the wishes of the State sovereignties? Do they not correspond with the wishes of their respective sovereign, with the wishes of the sovereign of the United States. But, sir, the President is arraigned for the exercise of a usurped authority over the public treasure. In the language of the Senator from Kentucky, he has laid an unhallowed hand upon the public purse. Is this fact or groundless assumption? By changing the places of collecting and depositing the revenue, has he increased his power over the money of the people? Can he now touch it without polluting his hands? Can the Secretary of the Treasury use one dollar of the public money in the State banks, more than he could before, when it was in the Bank of the United States and its branches? The same guaranties for the safety of our treasure now exist that formerly existed. The power of the President is neither increased nor diminished. If corrupt, the public money was equally within his reach in the Bank of the United States as in the State banks. But gentlemen assert that he has assumed the same power over the purse that he has over the sword. True, sir, he has exercised the same power over the purse and the sword. He has rightfully the same power over the sword and purse. He cannot use, and never has used, either, without legislative authority, given according to the provisions of the constitution. Can he unsheath the sword to strike abroad or at home? Can he lift his hand against foreign violence or domestic treason without our leave? So is it with the purse; he cannot, he dare not, touch one mill without legislative per mission. A suggestion has been made, Mr. President, which I heard with regret, that the SENATE.] Removal of the Deposits. [JANUARY, 1834. The public money has been placed in favorite par- -it destroys all responsibility for the wisdom tisan banks, where it is likely to be used for of his acts. He reports to Congress, and proves all purposes of speculation and peculation. This his folly of improvidence. What remedy has means, I presume, that the deposits being Congress to apply? It can apply none. changed to the State banks, a new and unworthy two branches of the legislature may indeed class of persons will receive loans who could decide that the removal of the officer would be not have obtained them from the Bank of the proper. But this act must be performed by the United States. This sweeping denunciation of Executive. We have here then a nominal the respectable and irreproachable directors of responsibility to Congress, resting for its efficacy all the State institutions trusted by the Secre- on the only constitutional sanction, the Executary of the Treasury, is without the shadow of tive power of removal. foundation. For skill and integrity they stand as fair as the directors of the Bank of the United States or any of its branches. The phrase of "favorite partisan banks" shows how idle the suggestion is. Of the banks now the depositories of the public money, the great mass are managed by persons decidedly opposed to the administration; who, on the question of re-chartering the Bank of the United States, differ with the Executive; whose influence and whose votes were against the present Chief Magistrate at the last election. The President of the United States and the late Secretary of the Treasury seem, sir, to have well understood their respective powers and obligations. When the question of the removal of the deposits was first agitated, Mr. Duane, with the frankness and firmness entitled to public respect, opposed the measure-it was one he could not sanction, but if resolved upon by the President, he would give way for another, who, coinciding with the President, could act without scruple or hesitation. After thorough investigation of the various arguments It is further alleged that the terms of the submitted to him, the President made his deciact establishing the Treasury Department prove sion; and then, unfortunately, Mr. Duane dethat the Secretary was not to be under the con- clined fulfilling his voluntary engagement. trol of the Executive. It is made his duty "to The cause assigned was still more unfortunate. prepare and report plans for the improvement He conceived that he was insulted. This did and management of the public revenue, and not absolve him from his engagement; indeed for the support of public credit," and "to report it should have furnished a new motive for withto either House of Congress upon any subject drawing. If treated courteously, his resignation referred to him," &c. The Secretary being should have been tendered out of respect to bound to report to Congress, and not to the the President; if rudely, he should have thrown Executive, it is gravely urged that the respon- back upon the President his commission from sibility of the Secretary must be to Congress respect to himself. Honorable Senators cenand not to the Executive. These clauses in the sure without measure the paper read to the Cabact of 1789 were not admitted without dispute inet by the President. The exercise of ordiand animadversion. The construction now put nary charity would place the subject in a very upon them would be truly surprising to the different light from that thrown upon it here. disputants of that day. Then it was urged by Is it not apparent from the document itself, the objectors to the introduction of them, recollecting the preceding and attendant cirthat it gave power to the Secretary over Con- cumstances, that the sole object of the President gress; not power to Congress over the Secre- was to shield Mr. Duane from the responsibility tary. [See Marshall's Life of Washington- of the act which he seemed to dread. The pages 200 to 205.] They were defended and President desired to take the whole, to reconcile retained on the simple ground that they were his Secretary to the course resolved on. intended merely to procure, directly and con- tertaining a conscientious conviction that the veniently, information in detail from the best course was fraught with injurious consequences and most practical source. No one maintained to the public, the Secretary would have been or imagined that any change in the responsi- faithless had he accepted the offered shelter. bility of the Secretary was to result from them. He was only wrong in shifting the ground Gentlemen seem to be entirely unconscious of upon which he stood. No honest Secretary the effect of their hypothesis. If they are right, will ever put his hand to a work which, in his the responsibility of a Secretary of the Treasury judgment, will bring ruin or distress upon his for a wise administration of his Department, country. No public officer is bound to suffer is nominal-it has no sanction. According to even uncourteous treatment from the Chief true theory, all the Executive officers of Gov- Magistrate; the only honorable step, in either ernment are responsible for the purity and case, is resignation of office, and submission of his wisdom of their conduct in the execution of the conduct to the judgment of that great tribunal, duties devolved upon them: to the Executive public opinion, to which all must yield a cheerand to Congress for their purity-to the Execu-ful or forced obedience. If little charity has tive alone for their wisdom. The hypothesis of Senators does not touch the responsibility of the Secretary of the Treasury through an impeachment; but in this he is in no respect different from the other Heads of Departments En been shown to the President, by what term shall I describe the treatment of the present Secretary of the Treasury, distinguished through a long life as a politician and as a man by his urbanity, and courtesy, and virtue. To call it TUESDAY, February 4. - [SENATE. Removal of the Deposits Mr. WEBSTER moved to refer the report of the Secretary of the Treasury, and the second resolution offered by the Senator from Kentucky, to the Committee on Finance. harsh would not convey an adequate idea of its | prostrates the only obstacle to the exertion of extreme injustice. An officer, who, previous the power of Congress over the whole subject to appointment to the Treasury Depart- and all the interests connected with it. So far ment, had urged upon the President, by fact from claiming, therefore, power to the prejudice and argument, the propriety of a removal of of Congress; so far from denying or attemptthe deposits, is accused of being made the ing to resist their authority, he has loosened the supple tool of the Executive for the perform- bonds imposed by Congress upon their own ance of that act; is represented as standing hands. Supposing him to have been mistaken by, the cold spectator of the struggles of his in his construction of the charter of the bank, colleague in the contest, between his conscience admitting that Congress had the same power and his attachment to the Chief Magistrate; as the Secretary, or unlimited power over the as witnessing the contemptuous expulsion of deposits, there is now no pretext for accusing the that colleague from office, and then coolly enter- Secretary of the Treasury of setting up claims ing the vacant place without sympathy or the to an authority above the power of Congress. smallest emotion for the man who preferred the loss of honors and emoluments to a betrayal of the interests of the people. The present Secretary left a place of honor for another not more honorable, a place of great responsibility for one of greater responsibility, a place uniting honor and profit, which the condition of a large family impelled him to regard, for an honorable place, the profits of which are insufficient to defray his necessarily increased expenditures. These circumstances alone should protect him from the slightest censure, but he stood committed to the President by his previously given advice, and when called upon to perform a task he had urged upon his colleague, he could not without dishonor, have disobeyed the call. He stood pledged to the Chief Magistrate and to the country, and he has not shrunk from his duty. He abides with unshaken confidence in the justice of his country, for all the consequences of the act he recommended to another and performed himself. And how is he represented here by the Senators from Kentucky (Mr. CLAY), and South Carolina (Mr. CALHOUN), as claiming all power to himself, and denying all power to Congress, as claiming to himself and the Executive an authoritative control over the whole treasure of the nation, and denying the right of Congress to interfere. This is a terrible position to an officer whose duties are prescribed by Congress, who is now dependent upon one branch of Congress for his continuance in an office which he is accused of having earned regardless of the feelings and honors of a colleague, by base subserviency to the mandates of a ruthless master. Let us examine if in fact the Secretary claims this extensive, exclusive power. The Secretary holds that the charter of the bank is a contract between the Government of the United States and the stockholders-is this denied? The Secretary holds that by that contract the power to remove the deposits is expressly given to the Secretary of the Treasury, and to him alone. Is this denied? In the execution of that contract, the Secretary holds that he must be the agent to exercise that power, and that it cannot be exercised by any other agent without a violation of the obligation of the Government. Is this denied? The Secretary holds that the removal of the deposits by himself is in conformity with the contract, and In proposing this motion, Mr. WEBSTER said that the intention was to give the committee an opportunity to make a report on the financial part of the subject, and promised that the report should be brought in to-morrow as soon as the Senate were in session. Some discussion took place on the point of order, whether this reference would not take the subject from before the Senate, and thus arrest the pending discussion; in which Mr. WEBSTER, Mr. CLAY, Mr. POINDEXTER, and Mr. SPRAGUE, took the negative of the question, and Mr. WRIGHT and Mr. KING took the affirmative view. The motion was then agreed to. WEDNESDAY, February 5. Report on the Removal of the Deposits. Mr.WEBSTER, from the Committee on Finance, to whom were referred the report of the Secretary of the Treasury on the removal of the deposits, and the second of the resolutions offered by the Senator from Kentucky, made a report, the reading of which being called for, Mr. WEBSTER read the report, which occupied about an hour and a quarter, and concluded with recommending the adoption of the second resolution introduced by Mr. CLAY. Mr. WEBSTER moved that the report of the committee be printed, and that the report of the Secretary of the Treasury, and the resolution which had been before the committee, with the other resolution of the Senator from Kentucky, be made the special order for to-day. The motion was agreed to. Mr. CHAMBERS moved that 6,000 additional copies of the report be printed. The motion to print 6,000 extra copies was decided in the affirmative-ayes 27. [FEBRUARY, 1834. make its appearance? On the day that the Senator from Kentucky made his address to the The Senate proceeded to the consideration of Senate. That voice, to which no man could the Special Order, being The Removal of the Deposits. listen without delight, was followed by this distress. He (Mr. W.) had travelled through his own State, and could say, that if the removal of the deposits had there effected any change, it was in favor of the man who made the removal. He (Mr. W.) had been going on, when he was interrupted, to say that he could have wished that a different course had been adopted by the bank. He could have wished that it had reasoned with the administration and Congress, and suspended, until the result was known, the oppressive measures which it had pursued. The bank, however, had thought proper to act dif Mr. WILKINS said before he proceeded to those resolutions he would again deprecate the degree of warmth which had been displayed in connection with the subject. On each side tragic pictures had been drawn of the state of the country. They had been told that they were in the midst of a revolution—that the constitution was lying prostrate and bleeding before them-that the rights of the people had been trampled on, and that, though blood had not yet been drawn, a civil war was fast ap-ferently. Although it was said to be the agent proaching. They were told that the gloom of $76 and 77 was hovering over them. In the foreground of the picture was depicted an ambitious President, grasping at despotic power, and fast ascending to the despotic throne, with the purse in one hand and the sword in the other, a public robber of the rights and treasure of the people. All this was in the foreground of the picture; while in the background, out of sight, were to be found the real principles of the question. If gentlemen judged of political by physical phenomena, there might be some reason to suppose that the evils spoken of would come upon them. If it were true that a political storm was always preceded by a calm, gentlemen were right in the views they took of this subject. Until the present debate commenced, long after the removal of the deposits, there was an entire calm. The confidence in government was unparalleled. If any change took place in that confidence it was only known by its increase. A revolution "yet bloodless!" What did the honorable Senator from New Jersey mean? He (Mr. W.) would leave it to be settled by the people. He only wished to say that the picture which had been drawn was too highly colored. He thought that what had been said was uncalled for by any public act of the Government. When this subject was examined, and the very worst made of it, what did it amount to? Simply that no emergency had occurred in the country to justify the removal of the deposits. Take the report of the Committee on Finance, and every thing which had been said and done upon the subject, and what did it amount to? That the Secretary had the power of removing the public money, but that his act was not justified by expediency. The law was with the Secretary, but he had not been governed by expediency. A mere mistake as to the extent of the emergency. And out of this simple fact had grown all the alarms which had been spread through the country. Senators had assembled in peace and quietness. The 1st of December, 1833, came round without any complaint-without even a whisper from the people. Let them look back. Where did the panic come from? On what day did it first of Congress, it had never had one word with Congress. It had made war upon its principal, and had also waged war upon an innocent and unoffending community. Liberality or restriction was in its power, and it chose the latter. He (Mr. W.) only asked that the bank would allow Congress the power of arresting it in the particular course which it had adopted. A different course would have been prudent, both as it related to the country and to the stockholders. He would say one word on the subject of the union of the purse and the sword in the person of the President. There could be no such thing as a union of the purse and the sword as long as the constitution should exist, as long as the people remained free and enlightened. If it were intended to corrupt the people—if corruption were to take hold of the people, such as the conduct of the bank pointed out, then, indeed, a union of the purse and the sword might be talked of. What was the power of the sword, which was so much spoken of? The President was indeed, by the constitution, the commander-in-chief of the militia of the country. But what was that more than a nominal power? What could he do? He could not raise men; he could not clothe them; he could not pay them; he could not appoint a single officer without the consent of Congress. It was Congress that did all this, and not the Executive. Even the very subsistence of the President himself depended upon the will of Congress. The President could not make war or peace; those acts must also emanate from Congress; and if the President overstepped his powers, he was liable to be impeached, to be tried by the Senate, and to be hurled from his office. With regard to the present action of the Executive, in removing the deposits, what power has the President assumed? In his cabinet paper of February, 1833, he cast from him all idea of uniting the purse and the Executive powers; he would have nothing to do with the deposits, but for strong facts respecting the conduct of the bank, which had recently come out. What did this prove? It proved that he had cast away from him the public purse, and that he |