reasons,

among other because it comes from the proper quarter-from the responsible party. We who are in favor of the Constitutional Treasury (for that is the proper name) have done all we could to effect our object; all has been defeated for the present. We have already made all the concessions consistent with the great and constitutional ground of separating Government and banks, which we have pledged ourselves to maintain. In order to effect this most important object, and to avoid the possibility of a pressure in carrying it through, we proposed to effect the separation gradually and slowly, through the long period of seven years. But notwithstanding this liberal concession, we have been defeated on a vote, going directly to the merits of the question, by a small majority. Our defeat has shifted the responsibility. It is admitted on all sides that something ought to be done, and that the revenue ought not to be left under the mere discretion of the Executive. We, who are for the separation, have met the responsibility fairly and fully, by proposing what we believed to be the proper remedy, and have failed; and it now belongs to those who have defeated us to propose theirs, or to stand responsible for the continuance of the present state of things, to which all sides are opposed. Our Government, it must be remembered, is very different from that of Great Britain. There the responsibility is wholly on the ministry, which is forced to retire on a defeat or to dissolve Parliament, and make a direct appeal to the people; but according to the principles of our Government, all are responsible; with this difference only, that the Executive, who is charged to administer the Government, is bound to recommend, in the first instance, the measure he deems proper, which, if it fails, throws the responsibility to find a substitute on those who have defeated his recommendation. In this case, I am for leaving the responsibility where reason, and the forms of our Government, place it. The Senator from Massachusetts, feeling this responsibility, has brought forward this bill; and

although I cannot, in conformity with my principles, give it any support, yet with these views of the two measures, other considerations being equal, I should prefer that the bill should be adopted rather than the amendment.

There is another view of the subject which raises strong objections in my mind to the amendment. Coming from the quarter it does, it is calculated to distract and confound the friends of the Constitutional Treasury, though I feel confident it was not so intended. I do but justice to the mover in saying, his declarations and votes, when not instructed, have been uniform and steady in favor of this great measure of reform; but it is not the less certain, that the measure he proposes must have an unhappy effect. It cannot be disguised, that the real issue is between the Constitutional Treasury—that is, that the Government should collect and keep, by its own officers, the revenues in the currency of the constitution, free from all connections with private corporations—and a National Bank. This is the real issue that divides the people and their representatives.

There are, indeed, a few respectable individuals who are in favor of the pet bank system, and still fewer in favor of special deposits; but they are too few to make a party, or to be taken into the estimate. It is desirable on all sides that the real issue should be seen, and that the people should prepare to meet it. It is indeed a great issue, involving a great revolution in our social condition, and the fate of our free institutions. The proposition of a special deposit system, coming as it does from a friendly and prominent quarter, cannot but tend to confound the friends of the Constitutional Treasury at this critical moment, and excite distrust. and suspicion. It illy accords with the lofty position that we have sustained, I will say with such triumphant and unanswerable arguments, and which have done so much to brace and prepare the public mind to meet this mighty contest; and in this case I cannot but regret the move as very

VOL. III.-23

unfortunate. If there was a move that required inflexible firmness, and when the least giving way was hazardous, it was this. Our cause is good. We have truth, reason, justice, and the constitution on our side; and these, if the cause be firmly and manfully maintained, must in the end prevail. I have never yet seen a good cause, supported as it ought to be, fail of success. In this case I always dreaded the onset. I saw the power of the opposite side sustained by the almost undivided banking interest of the country, and knew how imperfectly the question at issue was understood by the country at large; while, at the same time, I clearly perceived that such was the solidity and strength of our cause at bottom, that if we could resist the first onset without being utterly overwhelmed, victory in the end, if we stood fast, was inevitable. Well, we have met the first shock; and though defeated, so far from overthrown, a few more votes would have carried the cause triumphantly through both Houses. We have now only to stand fast till the people shall come to the rescue of the constitution and our free institutions; and come they will, with an overwhelming rush, when they come to understand the true character of the issue, if we, whom they have appointed to stand sentinels, do not desert or betray our trust. Thus regarding the character of the struggle, I would have a strong repugnance to vote for the amendment, coming from the quarter it does, even if I thought much more favorably of it than I do.

But, independent of these considerations, I cannot give it my support. I consider it of itself much more objectionable than the bill. The adoption of either would restore the pet bank system; but the latter, in a much more objectionable form, as will be manifest on a comparison of their respective provisions. They both propose to make the banks the depositaries of the public money, and to collect the revenue in bank-notes. The essential difference between them,

and the only essential difference, as I shall show, is, that the amendment proposes to repeal entirely the Deposit Act of 1836, as far as it relates to the banks, and the bill to retain it, with some, but not very important modifications, which it is not necessary to enumerate. The difference, then, is this: if the amendment prevails, we shall have the pet bank system, without any legal restrictions or limitations, as it stood prior to the passage of the Deposit Act of 1836; and if the bill prevails, we shall have it with all the restrictions and limitations which that act provides, except, as I have stated, a few not important modifications. The repeal of the act would give the Executive the right to select what banks he pleased, and as many as he pleased, to keep the public money; to dismiss them at his pleasure; to establish what regulations he chose; and to bestow or withhold favors at pleasure; in a word, would place the whole under his unlimited will and discretion. Such would be the case, if the amendment should prevail. On the other hand, if the bill should, the selection, the dismissal, the regulation, the duties to be performed, and the compensation to be paid for the use of the public funds, would all be under the control of law, instead of being left to Executive discretion. I am, said Mr. C., opposed to discretionary power: and when forced to decide between a system of deposit regulated by law, and one left to discretion, must prefer the former, though decidedly opposed to both; and must, therefore, vote in the first instance against the amendment, and, should that fail, against the bill itself.

[After some remarks from Mr. Buchanan, and from Mr. Clay in opposition to the amendment, Mr. Calhoun said:-]

I rise to notice some remarks of the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Clay), intended to represent me as a partisan of the administration. I have no fear that they would have the least possible effect within the limits of these walls, where

my course is well known and understood. I confidently appeal to every Senator present, whether my acts and votes on all occasions, have not been in strict conformity to principles which I have been known long to entertain. Not an instance can be pointed out to the contrary. But though the Senator's declarations will be harmless here, they may not be so beyond these walls, where they were intended to have an effect, if I should remain silent; and it is only on that account I notice them. I am no partisan of any man, nor any administration. I am free to act on all questions according to my unbiased judgment, unembarrassed by party trammels. I concur with the administration on the great question of the Constitutional Treasury, and have given, and will continue to give them, so far as that is concerned, a sincere, decided, and hearty support; and shall stand prepared to support or oppose whatever other measure they may propose, just as it may, or may not, accord with my principles and views of policy. I hope they may give me many opportunities to support, and few to oppose them. It is my fortune to stand here alone, looking to no other guide in the discharge of my duty, but God and my conscience. I seek neither office nor popular favor.

The Senator asks me if I belong to that sectional party in the South, which he intimates has views not very friendly to the continuance of the Union. He was not very explicit in his reference. If he means the party there which has stood up for Southern rights and interests-the party opposed to the tariff and his American System, to unequal and excessive duties and appropriations, the party opposed to abolition, and in favor of the direct trade-I am proud to say that I do belong to that party; but, if he refers to any party entertaining views or feelings hostile to the Union, I have only to say, I know of no such party there, nor do I belong to any such.

Providence, Mr. President, has pleased to cast my lot in