of his plans, with the boldness and manliness, and, withal, the arrogance forming such prominent traits in his character. The Independent Treasury law was repealed, against the votes of Mr. Calhoun and his Republican friends. In the minority as they were, it seemed impossible to oppose any checks or hindrances to the movements of the party in power.

Having disposed, as they thought forever, of this great Republican measure, the Whigs began to develop their own policy. Their system of measures, leaving out of view minor and comparatively unimportant propositions, was a triad-the Distribution of the Land Revenue among the states, the Incorporation of a National Bank, and the Revision of the Tariff so as to afford increased protection.

Distribution was but another name for the assumption of the state debts, and its object was to create a necessity for a high protective tariff, by withdrawing the revenue derived from the sale of the public lands from the treasury. Mr. Calhoun opposed it, as he had done at previous sessions; and on the 24th of August, 1841, he delivered one of his ablest speeches against the passage of the bill. It was an effort every way worthy of the cause and the man. He, of course, took the old Republican ground, that the original cession of the public lands was made to furnish the General Government with the means of defence, in opposition to the federal doctrine that it was the trustee of the states making the cession; and that if this resource were taken away, a much higher tariff would be needed for revenue--a result which the protectionists were extremely anxious to secure-and thus the policy of a

high protective tariff with a permanent distribution of the surplus revenue, would be fastened on the country for all time to come.

So palpable were the objections raised by Mr. Calhoun and other senators to the policy of distribution, and they were urged with such power and effect, that a sufficient number of Whigs united with them to procure the adoption of a proviso to the bill, declaring that the distribution should cease whenever the average rate of duties collected exceeded twenty per cent. Before the law went into operation, the Whigs increased the duties beyond that average, and it remained a dead letter on the statute book.

The Bankrupt bill was again brought forward at this session, and again opposed by Mr. Calhoun.

Two different bills providing for the incorporation of a national bank-the second one, however, disguising the project under the name of a fiscal agent of the treasury-passed both houses of Congress. Mr. Calhoun now felt free to vote upon the question as if it were an entirely new one; and as he was totally opposed to any connection between the government and banks, he voted against both measures. President Tyler, true to his State Rights principles, vetoed each bill in turn. The Whig party were confounded and dismayed; Congress adjourned in confusion, and the cabinet was dissolved. At the ensuing session-that of 1841-42-a fierce onslaught was made, under the auspices of Mr. Clay, upon the President, and upon his exercise of the veto power. However much Mr. Calhoun was disposed to resist the usurpations of the executive branch of the government, he would by no

means trespass upon its rights; and he regarded the veto as one of the great conservative features of the Constitution-a check upon hasty legislation and a protection to the Executive, the states, and the people, against legislative encroachment.

One of the ablest speeches he ever delivered was made on this question, and in defence of the veto power, which Mr. Clay proposed to take away in part from the President, by an amendment of the Constitution. He contended that if the executive power had been unwisely or improperly increased, the fault was in Congress in their special legislation, in the high tariff system, the collection of more revenue than was needed, the vast expenditures, and the multiplication of officers consequent upon these evils. "Is it not clear," he said, "that so far from the veto being the cause of the increase of his [the President's] power, it would have acted as a limitation on it if it had been more freely and frequently used? If the President had vetoed the original bank-the connection with the banking system --the tariffs of '24 and '28, and the numerous acts appropriating money for roads, canals, harbors, and a long list of other measures not less unconstitutional, would his power have been half as great as it now is? He has grown great and powerful, not because he used his veto, but because he abstained from using it. In fact, it is difficult to imagine a case in which its application can tend to enlarge his power, except it be the case of an act intended to repeal a law calculated to increase his power, or to restore the authority of one which, by an arbitrary construction of his power, he has set aside." He also denied, most emphatically, that this

was a government in which the numerical majority were alone potential, as was contended by the Whigs, who affirmed that the people had decided in favor of their measures by the election of General Harrison, although they made no declaration of their principles whatsoever. But he held that this was a government in which the states were heard, and one in which the rights of the minority were respected. This was done by the division of the legislative power into three branches; and to remove one of them, as must be the effect of abolishing or restricting the veto, would be to destroy the beauty and harmony of the whole system.

Early in this session, Mr. Clay had introduced a series of resolutions expressive of his views in relation to the revenues and expenditures of the government. He avowed himself friendly to the general principles of the Compromise act and the advalorem feature; proposed to raise no more revenue than was necessary for the economical administration of the government: and disapproved of any resort to loans or treasury notes, in time of peace, except to meet temporary deficits. So far Mr. Calhoun agreed with him: But he further proposed to raise all the revenue from customs, to surrender the land fund to the states, and to repeal the proviso in the distribution act; and upon these points. they wholly disagreed. Mr. Calhoun spoke on the resolutions, on the 16th of March, and protested in earnest terms against any departure from the great principle of the Compromise act, that no duty should be imposed after the 30th day of June, 1842, except for revenue necessary for the government economically administered.

Mr.

The protest of Mr. Calhoun was unavailing. Clay himself resigned his seat in the Senate, partly, it may be, because the friends of protection were beseeching him to lend his aid in raising the duties; and this he could not have done, without violating his solemn declaration made in 1833, that the compromise act was "a treaty of peace and amity" not to be disturbed,* and departing from the sentiments avowed in his speech on his resolutions, that specific duties and discriminations were unwise and unjust, and the advalorem principle was entitled to the preference.†

But, in the absence of Mr. Clay, there were other champions of protection to take his place, and the renewal of this perilous policy had been predetermined. Were it not for the disordered currency, the large expenditures, and the excessive issues of paper money by the banks, the influence of the compromise act would have been healthy. But the sudden reduction of the duties, on the 31st of December, 1841, in the then embarrassed condition of the country, occasioned a great falling off in the revenue. This was a misfortune, as Mr. Calhoun readily admitted; and he would cheerfully have favored any temporary expedient, or any moderate change in the tariff system, which would have made good the deficiency and prevented a recurrence of the evil. With this the manufacturers were not content; they wanted to substitute the old protective duties for the revenue duties, and to restore the specific features and the minimums.

* Speech in the Senate, February 15, 1833.

Speech, March 1, 1842.

The terms protective duty and revenue duty are often misapplied.