Now, Mr. President, it is certainly true that the Constitution authorizes Congress to establish uniform rules on the subject of bankruptcies; but it is equally true, and abundantly manifest, that this power was not granted with any reference to currency questions. It is a general power, a power to make uniform rules on the subject. How is it possible that such a power can be fairly exercised by seizing on corporations and bankers, but excluding all the other usual subjects of bankrupt laws? Besides, do such laws ordinarily extend to corporations at all? But suppose they might be so extended by a bankrupt law enacted for the usual purposes contemplated by such laws, how can a law be defended which embraces them and bankers alone? I should like to hear what the learned gentleman at the head of the Judiciary Committee, to whom the subject is referred, has to say upon it.

How does the President's suggestion conform to his notions. of the Constitution? The object of bankrupt laws, Sir, has no relation to currency. It is simply to distribute the effects of insolvent debtors among their creditors; and I must say, it strikes me that it would be a great perversion of the power conferred on Congress to exercise it upon corporations and bankers, with the leading and primary object of remedying a depreciated paper currency.

And this appears the more extraordinary, inasmuch as the President is of opinion that the general subject of the currency is not within our province. Bankruptcy, in its common and just meaning, is within our province. Currency, says the message, is not. But we have a bankruptcy power in the Constitution, and we will use this power, not for bankruptcy, indeed, but for currency. This, I confess, Sir, appears to me to be the short statement of the matter. I would not do the message or its author any intentional injustice, nor create any apparent, where there was not a real, inconsistency; but I declare, in all sincerity, that I cannot reconcile the proposed use of the bankrupt power with those opinions of the message which respect the authority of Congress over the currency of the country.

Mr. Wright of New York having made some remarks, Mr. Webster said in reply:

If the act of 1815 authorized the issuing of treasury-notes, no

circulation ever took place of such notes as the Secretary now recommends. All treasury-notes went on the ground of a temporary loan to the government, to be paid or funded as soon as the treasury would allow.

The member from New York has said that the question before the Senate is a simple proposition whether they should borrow money to be safely kept with the States. By him and by others it has also been represented as a question whether they should borrow money to give away. Nobody, certainly, would borrow money merely to give away, or deposit for safe-keeping. But I will put it to the honorable member, if any government had made a contract, or excited an expectation, that a deposit would be made, and the other party had acted on the faith of this assurance, and had nearly completed their arrangements, whether it ought not to supply the means, even if it did not at the time possess them. And suppose it was the promise of a gift, instead of a deposit, might it not be found more just to borrow than to defeat the expectation on which the other party had acted? What is the object of this bill? It is not to repeal, but to postpone what is hereafter to be fulfilled. Such being the case, it is doubtful whether the funds in question could ever be transferred to the States with more convenience than they can now be transferred from the banks.

During the late war there was great want of money, and a great disposition to use treasury-notes, and pass them as a medium of payment to the public creditors. But in the difficulties and embarrassments of a foreign war, things were done which, in a day of peace and abundance, we should be slow to do. One thing which we should be slow to do is, to propose by law that we should pay the public creditors any thing less in value than gold and silver, on the condition that the creditors will voluntarily take it. The Secretary has said that the protested checks now in circulation were only a little depreciated below the value of specie, and argues that these notes will be as good at least as the protested checks. But suppose these notes should be depreciated only a little below the value of silver; is it proposed that they should be offered to the public creditors, if they will receive them? What is meant when it is said that the officers of the government may pay its creditors in treasurynotes, if they will voluntarily receive them? What is the alter

native? Are the gold and silver held in one hand, and the treasury-notes in the other? On the contrary, is it not a sort of forced payment, not as good as is required by law? All know there is no choice. The men who labor in the streets of this city, on the public works, or who furnish the bricks and stones, will come for their pay, and they will be offered treasury-notes, and asked if they are willing to take them. But will there be gold and silver in the other hand? No; nothing but the treasury-notes, and they will be asked if they were willing to take them; and then, if they should take them, that is called voluntary reception.

Now, it is evident that in such a case the only choice is between treasury-notes, on the one hand, and something worse, or nothing at all, on the other. No man can be supposed to receive voluntarily any thing of less value than that which he is legally entitled to. The reception of such inferior medium is always the result of force or necessity, either greater or smaller. Neither the justice nor the dignity of the government can ever allow of such a course. If treasury-notes are offered to the public creditor, there ought to be an actual choice afforded between them and the specie. And especially, with what an aspect could this government offer such payment, at the very moment when, with a stern countenance and an iron hand, it is demanding of its creditors metallic money for every dollar of its dues? Is it not now the law, that no officer of the government shall offer the public creditor any thing less in value than specie? I am of opinion, therefore, that the notes proposed by the committee are better than those recommended by the Secretary. I am in favor of that system which will not force the public creditor to make a selection between paper and nothing.

In reply to Mr. Buchanan, Mr. Webster, having obtained and examined the act of 1815, said:

The honorable member from Pennsylvania has been kind enough to say, that I do not often get into difficulties in debate, and that when I do, I generally extricate myself better than I have done on the present occasion. He partakes in the supposed triumph of his friend from New York,* in having proved me

* Mr. Wright.

incorrect when I said that this government had never issued such paper money as the Secretary has now recommended. Now, Sir, although I am pleased to see the happiness which the gentleman enjoys, yet I believe I must dash it a little. Most assuredly, Sir, it authorizes no such paper as is now proposed. I was persuaded it could not, as I have a pretty good recollection of the proceedings of Congress on such subjects at that time.

The law of 1815 authorized the issue of two classes of treasury-notes; 1st. Such as bore no interest, but which, the very hour they were issued, might be funded in a seven per cent. stock, to be redeemed like other stocks of the government; 2d. Treasury-notes bearing an interest of five and two fifths per cent., capable of being funded in like manner in a six per cent. stock. These stocks were to be issued on application by any commissioner of the revenue in any State. Now, what comparison is there between either of these classes of treasury-notes and those recommended by the Secretary, which bear no interest, and for which no time of redemption is provided?

I affirm again, therefore, Sir, all that I have said, namely, that the notes recommended by the treasury are regular paper issues, like the old emissions of Congress and the States before the adoption of the present Constitution, and that no precedent has been found for them, and I am sure none can be found, in the practice of this government.

THE CURRENCY.*

In the month of May, 1837, an almost simultaneous suspension of specie payments on the part of the banks took place throughout the country. The public funds having, since their removal from the Bank of the United States, in 1833, been kept on deposit with certain State banks selected for that purpose, the general suspension of specie payments by all the banks was productive of immediate embarrassment to the treasury. A proclamation was forthwith issued by the President, calling an extra session of Congress for the 4th of September next following.

On the meeting of Congress, the disordered state of the public finances was laid before the two houses in the message of the President and the report of the Secretary of the Treasury. In accordance with their recommnendation, a law was passed to suspend the payment to the States of the fourth instalment of the surplus revenue. This measure forms the subject of the preceding speech. In further conformity to the executive recommendation, a bill was introduced into the Senate, by Mr. Wright of New York, from the Committee on Finance, "imposing additional duties as depositaries in certain cases, on public officers," to which bill an amendment was moved by Mr. Calhoun, providing for the repeal, to take effect gradually, of the resolution of the 30th April, 1816, so far as that resolution authorized the receipt of notes of specie-paying banks in payment of public dues. This amendment and the bill as amended passed the Senate, but failed in the House of Representatives. During the pendency of the amendment, Mr. Webster addressed the Senate on the general question raised by the bill and amendment, as follows:

MR. PRESIDENT, I am opposed to the doctrines of the message, to the bill, and to the amendment of the member from

* A Speech delivered in the Senate of the United States, on the 28th of September, 1837, on the Currency, and on the new Plan for collecting and keeping the Public Moneys.