ness, he advocated a President and Senate for life, and the appointment, by this Government, of the governors of the States, with a veto on State laws. These bold measures failing, he retired from the convention, it is said, in disgust; but afterwards, on more mature reflection, became the zealous and able advocate of the adoption of the constitution. He saw, as he thought, in a scheme of government, which conferred the unlimited power of taxing and declaring war, the almost unbounded source of power, in resolute and able hands ; hence his declaration, that though the Government was weak in its organization, it would, when put in action, find the means of supporting itself; a profound reflection, proving that he clearly saw how to make it, in practice, what his movements in the convention had failed to accomplish in its organization. Nor has he left it in doubt, as to what were the means on which he relied to effect his object. We all recollect the famous assertion of the elder Adams, that the "British constitution," restored to its original principles, and freed from corruption, was the wisest and best ever formed by man: and Hamilton's reply, that the British constitution, freed from corruption, would be impracticable, but, with its corruption, was the best that ever existed. To realize what was intended by this great man, it must be understood, that he meant not corruption in its usual sense of bribery. He was too able and patriotic to resort to such means, or to the petty policy this bill is intended to prevent. Either of these modes of operation was on too small a scale for him. Like all great and comprehensive minds, he acted on masses, without much regard to individuals. He meant by corruption, something far more powerful and comprehensive; that policy which systematically favored the great and powerful classes of society, with the view of binding them, through their interest, to the support of the Government. This was the single object of his policy, and to which he strictly and resolutely adhered, throughout his career; but which, whe

ther suited or not to the British system of government is, as time has shown, uncongenial and dangerous to ours.

After the constitution was adopted, he was placed at the head of the Treasury Department, a position which gave full scope to his abilities, and placed ample means at his disposal to rear up the system he meditated. Well and skilfully did he use them. His first measure was the adoption of the funding system, on the British model; and on this the two schools, which have ever since, under one form or another, divided the country, and ever will divide it, as long as the Government endures, came into conflict. They were both in favor of keeping the public faith, but differed as to the mode of assuming the public debt, and the amount that ought to be assumed. The policy of Hamilton prevailed. The amount assumed was about $80,000,000, a vast sum for a country so impoverished, and with a population so inconsiderable as we then had. The creation of the system, and the assumption of so large a debt, gave a decided and powerful impulse to the Government, in the direction in which it has since continued to move, almost constantly.

This was followed by a measure adopted on his own responsibility, and in the face of law; but which, though at the time it attracted little attention or opposition, has proved the most powerful of all the means employed in rearing up and maintaining his favorite system. I refer to the treasury order directing the receipt of bank-notes in the dues of the Government, and which was the first link of that unconstitutional and unholy alliance between this Government and the banks, that has been followed by such disastrous consequences. I have, Mr. President, been accused of extravagance, in asserting that this unholy connection with the paper system was the great and primary cause of almost every departure from the principles of the constitution, and of the dangers to which the Government has been exposed. I am happy to have it in my power to show, that I do not

ness, he advocated a President and Senate for life, and the appointment, by this Government, of the governors of the States, with a veto on State laws. These bold measures fail

ing, he retired from the convention, it is said, in disgust; but afterwards, on more mature reflection, became the zealous and able advocate of the adoption of the constitution. He saw, as he thought, in a scheme of government, which conferred the unlimited power of taxing and declaring war, the almost unbounded source of power, in resolute and able hands; hence his declaration, that though the Government was weak in its organization, it would, when put in action, find the means of supporting itself; a profound reflection, proving that he clearly saw how to make it, in practice, what his movements in the convention had failed to accomplish in its organization. Nor has he left it in doubt, as to what were the means on which he relied to effect his object. We all recollect the famous assertion of the elder Adams, that the "British constitution," restored to its original principles, and freed from corruption, was the wisest and best ever formed by man and Hamilton's reply, that the British constitution, freed from corruption, would be impracticable, but, with its corruption, was the best that ever existed. To realize what was intended by this great man, it must be understood, that he meant not corruption in its usual sense of bribery. He was too able and patriotic to resort to such means, or to the petty policy this bill is intended to prevent. Either of these modes of operation was on too small a scale for him. Like all great and comprehensive minds, he acted on masses, without much regard to individuals. He meant by corruption, something far more powerful and comprehensive; that policy which systematically favored the great and powerful classes of society, with the view of binding them, through their interest, to the support of the Government. This was the single object of his policy, and to which he strictly and resolutely adhered, throughout his career; but which, whe

ther suited or not to the British system of government is, as time has shown, uncongenial and dangerous to ours.

After the constitution was adopted, he was placed at the head of the Treasury Department, a position which gave full scope to his abilities, and placed ample means at his disposal to rear up the system he meditated. Well and skilfully did he use them. His first measure was the adoption of the funding system, on the British model; and on this the two schools, which have ever since, under one form or another, divided the country, and ever will divide it, as long as the Government endures, came into conflict. They were both in favor of keeping the public faith, but differed as to the mode of assuming the public debt, and the amount that ought to be assumed. The policy of Hamilton prevailed. The amount assumed was about $80,000,000, a vast sum for a country so impoverished, and with a population so inconsiderable as we then had. The creation of the system, and the assumption of so large a debt, gave a decided and powerful impulse to the Government, in the direction in which it has since continued to move, almost constantly.

This was followed by a measure adopted on his own responsibility, and in the face of law; but which, though at the time it attracted little attention or opposition, has proved the most powerful of all the means employed in rearing up and maintaining his favorite system. I refer to the treasury order directing the receipt of bank-notes in the dues of the Government, and which was the first link of that unconstitutional and unholy alliance between this Government and the banks, that has been followed by such disastrous consequences. I have, Mr. President, been accused of extravagance, in asserting that this unholy connection with the paper system was the great and primary cause of almost every departure from the principles of the constitution, and of the dangers to which the Government has been exposed. I am happy to have it in my power to show, that I do not

stand alone in this opinion. Our attention has lately been attracted, by one of the journals of this city, to a pamphlet containing the same sentiment, published as far back as 1794; the author of which was one of the profoundest and purest statesmen to whom our country has ever given birth, but who has not been distinguished in proportion to his eminent talent and ardent patriotism. In confirmation of what I assert, I will thank the Senator from North Carolina near me (Mr. Strange) to read a paragraph taken from the pamphlet, which contains expressions as strong as any I have ever used in reference to the point in question.

[Mr. Strange read as follows:

"Funding and banking systems are indissolubly connected with every commercial and political question, by an interest generally at enmity with the common good. In the great cases of peace and war, of fleets and armies, and of taxation and navigation, their cries will for ever resound throughout the continent. Whereas the undue bias of public officers is bounded by known salaries, and persons not freeholders are hardly, if at all, distinguishable from the national interest. One observation is adduced in proof of this doctrine. Paper fraud, knowing the restiveness of liberty when oppressed, is under an impulse to strengthen itself by alliances with legislative corruption, with military force, and with similar foreign systems. War with Britain can be turned by it to great account. In case of victory, a military apparatus, united to it by large arrears, and an aversion to being disbanded, will be on hand. In case of defeat, paper will constitute an engine of Government analogous to the English system. Can republicanism safely intrust a legislative paper junto with the management of such a war? If it does, no prophetic spirit is necessary to foretell that paper will be heaped upon liberty, from the same design with which mountains were heaped upon the giants by the dissolute junto of Olympus."]

The next movement he made was the boldest of the whole series. The union of the Government with the paper system was not yet complete. A central control was wanting, in order to give to it unity of action, and a full development of its power and influence. This he sought in a National Bank, with a capital of $10,000,000, to be com