Are we quite sure, that on this side of the water, it has had no effect favorable to British interests? It has often been stated, and although I do not know that it is susceptible of strict proof, I believe it to be a fact that this Bank exercised its influence in support of Jay's treaty-and may it not have contributed to blunt the public sentiment, or paralyze the efforts of this nation against British aggression.

The duke of Northumberland is said to be the most considerable stockholder in the Bank of the United States. A late lord chancellor of England besides other noblemen, was a large stockholder. Suppose the prince of Essling, the duke of Cadore, and other French dignitaries owned seven-eighths of the capital of the Bank, should we witness the same exertions (I allude not to any made in the Senate) to re-charter it? So far from it, would not the danger of French influence be resounded throughout the nation?

I shall therefore give my most hearty assent to the motion for striking out the first section of the bill.

ON THE BANK CHARTER.

AT LEXINGTON, KENTUCKY, JUNE 3, 1816.

[Mr. CLAY's speech on the question of chartering the Bank of the United States in 1816 was not reported; but in an Address to his Constituents, published in the Kentucky Gazette, Lexington, June 3d, 1816, he gave the substance of it, as follows:]

On one subject, that of the Bank of the United States, to which, at the late session of Congress, I gave my humble support, I feel particularly anxious to explain the grounds on which I acted. This explanation, if not due to my own character, the State and district to which I belong have a right to demand. It would have been unnecessary, if my observations, addressed to the House of Representatives, pending the measure, had been published; but they were not published, and why they were not published, I am unadvised.

When I was a member of the Senate of the United States, I was induced to oppose the renewal of the charter of the old Bank of the United States, by three general considerations. The first was, that I was instructed to oppose it by the Legislature of the State. What were the reasons that operated with the Legislature, in giving the instruction, I do not know. I have understood from members of that body, at the time it was given, that a clause, declaring that Congress had no power to grant the charter, was stricken out; from which it might be inferred, either that the Legislature did not believe a bank unconstitutional, or that it had formed no opinion on that point. This inference derives additional strength from the fact, that, although the two late Senators from this State, as well as the present Senators, voted for a National Bank, the Legislature, which must have been well apprised that such a measure was in contemplation, did not again interpose, either to protest against the measure itself, or to censure the conduct of those Senators. From this silence on the part of a body which has ever fixed a watchful eye upon the pro

ceedings of the general government, I had a right to believe that the Legislature of Kentucky saw, without dissatisfaction, the proposal to establish a National Bank; and that its opposition to the former one was upon grounds of expediency, applicable to that corporation alone, or no longer existing. But when, at the last session, the question came up as to the establishment of a National Bank, being a member of the House of Representatives, the point of inquiry with me was not so much what was the opinion of the Legislature, although undoubtedly the opinion of a body so respectable would have great weight with me under any circumstances, as what were the sentiments of my immediate constituents. These I believed to be in favor of such an institution, from the following circumstances: In the first place, my predecessor, (Mr. Hawkins) voted for a National Bank, without the slightest murmur of discontent. Secondly, during the last fall, when I was in my district, I conversed freely with many of my constituents upon that subject, then the most common topic of conversation, and all, without a single exception as far as I recollect, agreed that it was a desirable, if not the only efficient remedy, for the alarming evils in the currency of the country. And lastly, during the session I received many letters from my constituents, prior to the passage of the bill, all of which concurred, I believe without a solitary exception, in advising the measure. So far, then, from being instructed by my district to oppose the bank, I had what was perhaps tantamount to an instruction to support it-the acquiescence of my constituents in the vote of their former representative, and the communi- . cations, oral and written, of the opinions of many of them in favor of a bank.

The next consideration which induced me to oppose the renewal of the old charter, was, that I believed the corporation had, during a portion of the period of its existence, abused its powers, and had sought to subserve the views of a political party. Instances of its oppression for that purpose were asserted to have occurred at Philadelphia and at Charleston; and, although denied in Congress by the friends of the institution during the discussions on the application for the renewal of the charter, they were, in my judgment, satisfactorily made out. This oppression, indeed, was admitted in the House of Representatives, in the debate on the present bank, by a distinguished member of that party which had so warmly espoused the renewal of the old charter. It may be said, what security is there that the new

bank will not imitate this example of oppression? I answer, the fate of the old bank warning all similar institutions to shun politics, with which they ought not to have any concern; the existence of abundant competition, arising from the multiplication of banks, and the precautions which are to be found in the details of the present bill.

A third consideration, under which I acted in 1811, was that, as the power to create a corporation, such as was proposed to be continued, was not specifically granted in the constitution, and did not then appear to me to be necessary to carry into effect any of the powers which were specifically granted, Congress was not authorized to continue the bank. The constitution contains powers delegated and prohibitory, powers expressed and constructive. It vests in Congress all powers necessary to give effect to enumerated powers— all that may be necessary to put into motion and activity the machine of government which it constructs. The powers that may be so necessary are deducible by construction. They are not defined in the constitution. They are, from their nature, indefinable. When the question is in relation to one of these powers, the point of inquiry should be, is its exertion necessary to carry into effect any of the enumerated powers and objects of the general government? With regard to the degree of necessity, various rules have been, at different times, laid down; but, perhaps, at last, there is no other than a sound and honest judgment exercised, under the checks and control which belong to the constitution and to the people.

The constructive powers, being auxiliary to the specifically granted powers, and depending, for their sanction and existence, upon a necessity to give effect to the latter, which necessity is to be sought for and ascertained by a sound and honest discretion, it is manifest that this necessity may not be perceived, at one time, under one state of things, when it is perceived at another time, under a different state of things. The constitution, it is true, never changes; it is always the same; but the force of circumstances and the lights of experience may evolve to the fallible persons, charged with its administration, the fitness and necessity of a particular exercise of a constructive power to-day, which they did not see at a former period.

When the application was made to renew the old charter of the Bank of the United States, such an institution did not appear to me

to be so necessary to the fulfillment of any of the objects specifically enumerated in the constitution as to justify Congress in assuming, by construction, power to establish it. It was supported mainly upon the ground that it was indispensable to the treasury operations. But the local institutions in the several States were at that time in prosperous existence, confided in by the community, having a confidence in each other, and maintaining an intercourse and connexion the most intimate. Many of them were actually employed by the treasury to aid that department, in a part of its fiscal arrangements, and they appeared to me to be fully capable of affording to it all the facility that it ought to desire in all of them. They superseded, in my judg ment, the necessity of a national institution. But how stands the case in 1816, when I am called upon again to examine the power of the general government to incorporate a National Bank? A total change of circumstances is presented. Events of the utmost magnitude have intervened.

A general suspension of specie payments has taken place, and this has led to a train of consequences of the most alarming nature. I behold, dispersed over the immense extent of the United States, about three hundred banking institutions, enjoying, in different degrees, the confidence of the public, shaken as to them all, under no direct control of the general government, and subject to no actual responsibility to the State authorities. These institutions are emitting the actual currency of the United States; a currency consisting of a paper, on which they neither pay interest nor principal, while it is exchanged for the paper of the community, on which both are paid. I see these institutions, in fact, exercising what has been considered, at all times and in all countries, one of the highest attributes of sovereignty, the regulation of the current medium of the country. They are no longer competent to assist the treasury in either of the great operations of collection, deposit, or distribution of the public revenues. In fact, the paper which they emit, and which the treasury, from the force of events, finds itself constrained to receive, is constantly obstructing the operations of that department. For it will accumulate where it is not wanted, and cannot be used where it is wanted for the purposes of government, without a ruinous and arbitrary brokerage. Every man who pays or receives from the government, pays or receives as much less than he ought, as is the difference between the medium in which the payment is effected, and specie. Taxes are no

*F