draw within its action subjects never contemplated by the constitution; multiply its acts, create numerous offices, and increase the revenue and expenditures proportionally,—and, at the same time, frame its laws vaguely and loosely, and withdraw, in a great measure, its supervising care over their execution, his power would indeed become truly formidable and alarming. Now I appeal to the Senator and his friend, the author of this resolution, whether the growth of Executive power has not been the result of such a course on the part of Congress. I ask them whether this power has not, in fact, increased or decreased just in proportion to the increase or decrease of that system of legislation which has been described? What was the period of its maximum increase, but the very period which they have so frequently and loudly denounced as the one most distinguished for the prevalence of Executive power and usurpation? Much of that power certainly depended on the remarkable man then at the head of the department; but much-far more-on the system of legislation which the author of this resolution had built up with so much zeal and labor,—and which carried the powers of the Government to a point far beyond that to which it had ever before attained,-drawing many and important ones into its vortex, of which the framers of the constitution never dreamed. And here let me say to both of the Senators, and the party of which they are prominent members, that they labor in vain to bring down Executive power, while they support the system they so zealously advocate. The power they complain of is but its necessary fruit. Be assured, that as certain as Congress transcends its assigned limits, and usurps powers never conferred, or stretches those conferred beyond the proper limits; so surely will the fruits of its usurpation pass into the hands of the Executive. In seeking to become master, it but makes a master in the person of the President. It is only by confining itself to its allotted sphere, and a discreet use

of its acknowledged powers, that it can retain that ascendin the Government which the constitution intended to confer on it.

ency

Having now pointed out the cause of the great increase of the Executive power on which the Senator rested his objection to the veto power; and having satisfactorily shown, as I trust I have, that, if it has proved dangerous in fact, the fault is not in the constitution, but in Congress,-I would next ask him, in what possible way could the divesting the President of his veto, or modifying it as he proposes, limit his power? Is it not clear that, so far from the veto being the cause of the increase of his 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 1824 and 1828, 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.

Now let me add, in conclusion, that this is a question, in its bearings, of vital importance to that wonderful and sublime system of governments which our patriotic ancestors established, not so much by their wisdom,-wise and experienced as they were, as by the guidance of a kind Providence, who, in his divine dispensation, so disposed events as to lead to the establishment of a system wiser than those who framed it. The veto, of itself, important as it is, sinks into nothing compared to the principle involved. It is but

one, and that by no means the most considerable, of those many wise devices which I have attempted to explain, and which were intended to strengthen the popular basis of our Government, and resist its tendency to fall under the control of the dominant interest, acting through the mere numerical majority. The introduction of this resolution may be regarded as one of the many symptoms of that fatal tendency, -and of which we had such fearful indications in the bold attempt at the lat♥ extraordinary session, of forcing through a whole system of measures of the most threatening and alarming character, in the space of a few weeks, on the ground that they were all decided in the election of the late President; thus attempting to substitute the will of a majority of the people, in the choice of a Chief Magistrate, as the legislative authority of the Union, in lieu of the beautiful and profound system established by the constitution.

SPEECH

On Mr. Clay's Resolutions in relation to the Revenues and Expenditures of the Government; delivered in the Senate, March 16th, 1842.

MR. CALHOUN said: These resolutions are of a very mixed and contradictory character. They contain much that I approve, and much that I condemn. I approve of them, in the first place, because they recognize the Compromise Act, and profess to respect its provisions. I still more heartily approve of them because they assert that no duty ought to be laid but for revenue, and no revenue raised but what may be necessary for the economical administration of the Government; and, by consequence, they abandon the

protective policy. I very decidedly approve of the preference which they give to the ad valorem, over specific duties, and the effective argument of the Senator (Mr. Clay), in support of this preference. And finally, I approve of the principle that the Government ought not to rely on loans or treasury notes, as a part of their ways and means in time of peace, except to meet a temporary deficit.

Having approved of so much, it may be asked for what do I condemn them? I condemn them for this; that they do not propose to carry out in practice, what they profess in principle; that while they profess to respect the Compromise Act, they violate it in every essential particular but one,the ad valorem principle; and even this I fear it is intended to set aside by the juggle of home valuation. If there be any part of that act more sacred than another, it is that which provides that there shall be no duty imposed after the 30th of June next, except for revenue, and no revenue raised, but what may be necessary to the economical administration of the Government. It was for this the act was passed, and without which it would not have existed. If this was not apparent on the face of the act itself, the causes which led to its adoption would clearly prove it. It is sufficient, in this connection, to remind the Senate that the object of the act was to terminate the controversy between the State of South Carolina and this Government, growing out of the tariff of 1828. The object of the State, as far as she was individually concerned, was twofold-to put down the protective policy, and to protect herself against high duties, even for revenue, when it could be avoided by due regard to economy. To secure the former, the provision was inserted that no duty should be laid but for revenue; and the latter, that no revenue should be raised but what was necessary for the economical administration of the Government. Without these provisions, I, as her representative on this floor, would never have given my assent to the act; and, if I had, the

State would never have acquiesced in it. I speak with perfect confidence; for even with these important provisions, she reluctantly assented to the compromise.

Besides these, there was another object in which the whole Union was deeply concerned, which influenced her in the step she then took; and that was, to guard against the dangerous consequences of an accumulation of a large surplus revenue in the treasury after the payment of the public debt. While defending herself, and the portion of the Union in which her lot is cast, against an unconstitutional and oppressive measure, she was not unmindful of her federal duties and obligations, nor did she permit her fidelity to the Union and the Government to be impaired in her resistance to oppression. She had the sagacity to see, long in advance, the corrupting and dangerous consequences of a large and permanent surplus, of which experience has since given such calamitous evidence; and has the merit of taking the most intrepid stand against it, while others were unheeding or indifferent to consequences. To guard against this danger, every article imported, that did not come in conflict with the protective policy, was made, by the Compromise Act, duty free to the 30th of June next, which, in the aggregate, equalled in value those on which the duties were retained; that is, one-half the duties was forthwith repealed, but to prevent the possibility of abuse, and to guard, in the most effectual manner, the two leading provisions of the act, it was expressly provided that, after that time, all articles of imports, except a small list contained in the 5th section, should be subject to duty, and that no duty should thereafter exceed 20 per cent. ad valorem. The intention of the former provision was to prevent the enlargement of the free list, and thereby raising the duties proportionally higher on the dutied articles; and of the latter, that, under no pretext whatever, for protection or revenue, should duties be raised above 20 per cent. which was regarded as the extreme limits