tlemen of intelligence returned home and staked their reputation and re-election on that issue. But we were not deceived then, as we do not intend to be now. We clearly saw through the deception, and took our stand at once, with a fixed determination to close the dangerous controversy, and throw off the oppressive and unconstitutional burden which weighed so heavily upon the energy and prosperity of the South. The time for action had arrived. The debt was paid, and yet the tariff of 1828, the offspring of the Senator from New-York and his party, remained almost in full energy. After a warm canvass, the State of South Carolina, as one of the sovereign members of this Union, met in convention, declared the act to be unconstitutional, and as such null and void. In a word, we nullified. Then followed the Proclamation and Force Bill, as the ultimate means of prolonging the existence of the odious and unconstitutional act of 1828, which the party of which the Senator is a member had attempted to fix on the country by a scheme of permanent distribution, and which, when the issue was made, they were ready to sustain at the hazard of civil war. But, thanks to a kind Providence which has watched so constantly over our destinies, their counsels did not prevail. The spirit of conciliation and compromise overruled that of violence and force. The memorable bill of 1833 was introduced by the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Clay), and became a law of the land in despite of the Protective and Force Bill party. It closed the conflict between the North and the South, which, if not revived by the arts of those who passed the tariff of 1828, will, I trust and believe, remain closed for ever.

Such is the train of events which led to the act of 1833, and the circumstances under which it passed, and we are now called on to decide whether we shall adhere to its provisions or not. The Senator from New-York invites us to surrender our interest in it, and to open anew the tariff controversy; and with a view to test our determination, has inserted in

this bill the repeal of the duty on salt. He signifies his dissent. I am glad of it. It proves that he dreads a direct issue on the subject, which is not surprising after the statement made; but I must tell him, that it is immaterial whether it was so intended or not. Salt is among the articles comprehended in the act, and, if we may touch one item, we may all. To vote for the repeal of a single item, unless with common consent, as effectually surrenders the compromise as to vote for the repeal of all.

The Senator from New-York must excuse me. I feel it my duty to speak plainly, where the interest of my constituents and the whole country is so deeply concerned. I must tell him I lack confidence in him. I see in his bill a design, under the show of reduction, to revive the tariff controversy, by which he and his party have so much profited at the expense of the country. It is an artful and bold stroke of party policy, calculated to distract and divide the opposition, and place almost unlimited control over the capital and labor of the country in the hands of those in power. It affords the means of appealing to the hopes and fears of every section and interest, while the distraction and division which must follow, would prevent the possibility of united efforts to arrest the abuses and encroachments of power. Experience has taught us to understand the game, and to be on our guard against those who are playing it. We cannot close our eyes to the fact, that the party which is now so intent to disturb the compromise, is the very party that was the author of the tariff of 1828, and which, after using every effort to render it permanent, was ready to shed our blood rather than surrender the act. Their devotion to a measure, of which they are the authors, and to which they owe their present elevation, prepared us to expect that deep hostility to that act which gave their favorite a mortal blow, and opened the way for an united, and we trust, ere long, a successful resistance to power acquired by deception, and retained by delusion and corrup

tion. The entire South may well apply to the Senator, as the author of the tariff of 1828, the reply which a distinguished Senator (Mr. Tazewell of Virginia) gave, after its passage, to one who now occupies a higher station than he then did, and who undertook to explain to him his vote on the occasion; "Sir, you have deceived me once-that was your fault; but if you deceive me again, the fault will be mine." Alas for Virginia! that once proud and patriotic State! She has dismissed her honest and enlightened son, who served her with so much fidelity, and has elevated to the highest office him who betrayed her and trampled her interest in the dust.

I know full well the attempts that will be made to misrepresent my position on this occasion, and to weaken me in the confidence of the public. I fear them not. I know well those whom I represent. They have too clear a conception of their true interest, and place too high an estimate on truth and honor, to withhold their confidence from him who fearlessly follows their dictates. They will scorn the miserable boon proffered by the Senator from New-York, and the hand that offers it, and will cling to the act which they so proudly wrung from this Government. Were I to listen to the voice of the Senator from New-York, they would hold me blind to their interests, and indifferent to their honor. I shall firmly maintain the position I have taken. I shall not assent to disturb the act of 1833, in the slightest degree, so long as the manufacturing interests shall adhere to its provisions, be the conduct of politicians what it may. Thus far they have firmly adhered. Not a murmur has been heard, or a petition offered, from that quarter against it, from its passage to the present day; while the memorials of the legislatures of the two great tariff States, Massachusetts and Pennsylvania, which pledge themselves to abide by the provisions of the act, give strong additional assurance that, if we do not disturb it on our part, they will not on theirs.

SPEECH

On the Bill authorizing the issue of Treasury Notes, delivered in the Senate, September 19th, 1837.

MR. PRESIDENT: An extraordinary course of events, with which all are too familiar to need recital, has separated, in fact, the Government and the banks. What relation shall they bear hereafter? Shall the banks again be used as fiscal agents of the Government? be the depositories of the public money? And, above all, shall their notes be considered and treated as money, in the receipts and expenditures of the Government? This is the great and leading question; one of the first magnitude, and full of consequences. I have given it my most anxious and deliberate attention; and have come to the conclusion that we have reached the period when the interests both of the Government and the banks forbid a reunion. I now propose to offer my reasons for this conclusion. I shall do it with that perfect frankness due to the country, and the position I occupy. All I ask is, that I may be heard with a candor and fairness corresponding to the sincerity with which I shall deliver my sentiments.

Those who support a reunion of the banks and the Government, have to overcome a preliminary difficulty. They are now separated, by operation of law, and cannot be united while the present state of things continues, without repealing the law which has disjoined them. I ask, who is willing to propose its repeal? Is there any one who, during the suspension of specie payments, would advocate their employment as the fiscal agents of the Government? who would make them the depositories of the public revenue, or who would receive and pay away their notes in the public dues?

If there be none, then it results that the separation must continue for the present, and that the reunion must be the work of time, and depending on the contingency of the resumption of specie payments.

But, suppose this difficulty to be removed, and that the banks were regularly redeeming their notes-from what party in this body can the proposition come, or by which can it be supported, for a reunion between them and the Government? Who, after what has happened, can advocate the reunion of the Government with the league of State banks? Can the opposition, who for years have been denouncing it as the most dangerous instrument of power-the most efficient means of corrupting and controlling the Government and country? Can they, after the exact fulfilment of all their predictions of disastrous consequences from the connection, now turn round and support that which they have so long and loudly condemned? We have heard much from the opposite side of untried experiments on the currency. I concur in the justice of the censure. Nothing can be more delicate than the currency. Nothing can require to be more delicately handled. It ought never to be tampered with, nor touched, until it becomes absolutely necessary. But if untried experiments justly deserve censure, what condemnation would a repetition of an experiment that has failed deserve? an experiment that has so signally failed, both in the opinion of supporters and opponents, as to call down the bitter denunciation of those who tried it? If to make the experiment was folly, the repetition would be madness. But if the opposition cannot support the measure, how can it be expected to receive support from the friends of the administration, in whose hands the experiment has so signally failed, as to call down from them execrations deep and loud?

If, Mr. President, there be any one point fully established by experience and reason, I hold it to be the utter incom