fact that the former required the concurrence of the states to execute its acts, and the latter, the act of a state to arrest its acts, would make a distinction as broad as the ocean: in the former, the vis inertia of our nature is in opposition to the action of the system. Not to act was to defeat. In the latter, the same principle is on the opposite side-action is required to defeat. He who understands human nature will see in this difference the difference between a feeble and illy-contrived confederation, and the restrained energy of a federal system. Of the same character is the objection that the doctrine will be the source of weakness. If we look to mere organization and physical power as the only source of strength, without taking into the estimate the operation of moral causes, such would appear to be the fact; but if we take into the estimate the latter, we shall find that those governments have the greatest strength in which power has been most efficiently checked. The government of Rome furnishes a memorable example. There, two independent and distinct powers existed— the people acting by tribes, in which the plebeians prevailed, and by centuries, in which the patricians ruled. The tribunes were the appointed representatives of the one power, and the Senate of the other: each possessed of the authority of checking and overruling one another, not as departments of the government, as supposed by the senator from Massachusetts, but as independent powers as much so as the State and General Governments. A shallow observer would perceive, in such an organization, nothing but the perpetual source of anarchy, discord, and weakness; and yet, experience has proved that it was the most powerful government that ever existed; and reason teaches that this power was derived from the very circumstance which hasty reflection would consider the cause of weakness. I will venture an assertion, which may be considered extravagant, but in which history will fully bear me out, that we have no knowledge of any people in which a power of arresting the improper acts of the government, or what may be called the negative power of government, was too strong, except Poland, where every freeman possessed a veto; but even there, although it existed in so extravagant a form, it was the source of the highest and most lofty attachment to liberty, and the most heroic courage: qualities that more than once saved Europe from the domination of the crescent and cimeter. It is worthy of remark, that the fate of Poland is not to be attributed so much to the excess of this negative power of itself, as to the facility which it afforded to foreign influence in controlling its political movements.

I am not surprised that, with the idea of a perfect government which the senator from Massachusetts has formed-a government of an absolute majority, unchecked and unrestrained, operating through a representative body-that he should be so much shocked with what he is pleased to call the absurdity of the state veto. But let me tell him that his scheme of a perfect government, as beautiful as he conceives it to be, though often tried, has invariably failed, and has always run, whenever tried, through the same uniform process of faction, corruption, anarchy, and despotism. He considers the representative principle as the great modern improvement in legislation, and of itself sufficient to secure liberty. I cannot regard it in the light in which he does. Instead of modern, it is of remote origin, and has existed, in greater or less perfection, in every free state, from the remotest antiquity. Nor do I consider it as of itself sufficient to secure liberty, though I regard it as one of the indispensable means-the means of securing the people against the tyranny and oppression of their rulers. To secure liberty, another means is still necessary-the means of securing the different portions of society against the injustice and oppression of each other, which can only be effected by veto, interposition, or nullification, or by whatever name the restraining or negative power of government may be called. The senator appears to be enamoured with his conception of a consolidated government, and avows himself to be prepared, seeking no lead, to rush, in its defence, to the front rank, where the blows fall heaviest and thickest. I ad

mire his gallantry and courage, but I will tell him that he will find in the opposite ranks, under the flag of liberty, spirits as gallant as his own; and that experience will teach him that it is infinitely easier to carry on the war of legislative exaction by bills and enactments, than to extort by sword and bayonet from the brave and the free.

The bill which has passed this body is intended to decide this great controversy between that view of our government entertained by the senator and those who act with him, and that supported on our side. It has merged the tariff, and all other questions connected with it, in the higher and direct issue which it presents between the federal and national system of governments. I consider the bill as far worse, and more dangerous to liberty, than the tariff. It has been most wantonly passed, when its avowed object no longer justified it. I consider it as chains forged and fitted to the limbs of the states, and hung up to be used when occasion may require. We are told, in order to justify the passage of this fatal measure, that it was necessary to present the olive-branch with one hand and the sword with the other. We scorn the alternative. You have no right to present the sword. The Constitution never put the instrument in your hands to be employed against a state; and as to the olive-branch, whether we receive it or not will not depend on your menace, but on our own estimate of what is due to ourselves and the rest of the community in reference to the difficult subject on which we have taken issue.

The senator from Massachusetts has struggled hard to sustain his cause, but the load was too heavy for him to bear. I am not surprised at the ardour and zeal with which he has entered into the controversy. It is a great struggle between power and liberty-power on the side of the North, and liberty on the side of the South. But, while I am not surprised at the part which the senator from Massachusetts has taken, I must express my amazement at the principles advanced by the senator from Georgia, nearest me (Mr. Forsyth). I had supposed it was impossible that one of his experience and sagacity should not perceive the new and dangerous direction which this controversy is about to take. For the first time, we have heard an ominous reference to a provision in the Constitution which I have never known to be before alluded to in discussion, or in connexion with any of our measures. I refer to that provision in the Constitution in which the General Government guaranties a republican form of gov ernment to the states a power which hereafter, if not rigidly restricted to the objects intended by the Constitution, is destined to be a pretext to interfere with our political affairs and domestic institutions in a manner infinitely more dangerous than any other power which has ever been exercised on the part of the General Government. I had supposed that every Southern senator, at least, would have been awake to the danger which menaces us from this new quarter; and that no sentiment would be uttered, on their part, calculated to countenance the exercise of this dangerous power. With these impressions, I heard the senator, with amazement, alluding to Carolina as furnishing a case which called for the enforcement of this guarantee. Does he not see the hazard of the indefinite extension of this dangerous power? There exists in every Southern State a domestic institution, which would require a far less bold construction to consider the government of every state, in that quarter, not to be Republican, and, of course, to demand, on the part of this government, a suppression of the institution to which I allude, in fulfilment of the guarantee. I believe there is now no hostile feelings combined with political considerations, in any section, connected with this delicate subject. But it requires no stretch of the imagination to see the danger which must one day come, if not vigilantly watched. With the rapid strides with which this government is advancing to power, a time will come, and that not far distant, when petitions will be received from the quarter to which I allude for protection: when the faith of the guarantee will be, at least, as applicable to that case as the senator from Geor-

Q

gia now thinks it is to Carolina. Unless his doctrine be opposed by united and firm resistance, its ultimate effect will be to drive the white population from the Southern Atlantic States.

VII.

SPEECH ON THE SUBJECT OF THE REMOVAL OF THE DEPOSITES FROM THE BANK OF THE UNITED STATES, JANUARY 13, 1834.

THE Special Order now came up, the question being on Mr. CLAY's resolutions in regard to the removal of the Public Deposites.

Mr. CALHOUN then rose, and said, that the statement of this case might be given in a very few words. The 16th section of the act incorporating the Bank provides that, wherever there is a bank or branch of the United States Bank, the public moneys should be deposited therein, unless otherwise ordered by the Secretary of the Treasury, and that, in that case, he should report to Congress, if in session, immediately; and, if not, at the commencement of the next session. The secretary, acting under the provision of this section, has ordered the deposites to be withheld from the Bank, and has reported his reasons, in conformity with the provisions of the section. The Senate is now called upon to consider his reasons, in order to determine whether the secretary is justified or not. I have examined them with care and deliberation, without the slightest bias, as far as I am conscious, personal or political. I have but a slight acquaintance with the secretary, and that little is not unfavourable to him. I stand wholly disconnected with the two great parties now contending for ascendency. My political connexions are with that small and denounced party which has voluntarily wholly retired from the party strifes of the day, with a view of saving, if possible, the liberty and the Constitution of the country, in this great crisis of our affairs.

Having maturely considered, with these impartial feelings, the reasons of the secretary, I am constrained to say that he has entirely failed to make out his justification. At the very commencement, he has placed his right to remove the deposites on an assumption resting on a misconception of the case. In the progress of his argument he has entirely abandoned the first, and assumed a new and greatly enlarged ground, utterly inconsistent with the first, and equally untenable; and yet, as broad as his assumptions are, there is an important part of the transaction which he does not attempt to vindicate, and to which he has not even alluded. I shall, said Mr. CALHOUN, now proceed, without farther remark, to make good these assertions.

The secretary, at the commencement of his argument, assumes the position that, in the absence of all legal provision, he, as the head of the financial department, had the right, in virtue of his office, to designate the agent and place for the safe-keeping of the public deposites. He then contends that the 16th section does not restrict his power, which stands, he says, on the same ground that it had before the passing of the act incorporating the Bank. It is unnecessary to inquire into the correctness of the position assumed by the secretary; but, if it were, it would not be difficult to show that when an agent, with general powers, assumes, in the execution of his agency, a power not delegated, the assumption rests on the necessity of the case; and that no power, in such case, can be lawfully exercised, which was not necessary to effect the object intended. Nor would it be difficult to show that, in this case, the power assumed by the secretary would belong, not to him, but to the treasurer, who, under the act organizing the Treasury Department, is expressly charged with the safe-keeping of the public funds, for which he is responsible under bond, in heavy penalties.

But, as strongly and directly as these considerations bear on the question of the power of the secretary, I do not think it necessary to pursue them, for the plain reason that the secretary has entirely mistaken the case. It is not a case, as he supposes, where there is no legal provision in relation to the safe-keeping of the public funds, but one of precisely the opposite character. The 16th section expressly provides that the deposites shall be made in the Bank and its branches, and, of course, it is perfectly clear that all powers which the secretary has derived from the general and inherent powers of his office, in the absence of such provision, are wholly inapplicable to this case. Nor is it less clear that, if the section had terminated with the provision directing the deposites to be made in the Bank, the secretary would have had no more control over the subject than myself, or any other senator; and it follows, of course, that he must derive his power, not from any general reasons connected with the nature of his office, but from some express provision contained in the section, or some other part of the act. It has not been attempted to be shown that there is any such provision in any other section or part of the act. The only control, then, which the secretary can rightfully claim over the deposites is contained in the provision which directs that the deposites shall be made in the Bank, unless otherwise ordered by the Secretary of the Treasury; which brings the whole question in reference to the deposites to the extent of the power which Congress intended to confer upon the secretary, in these few words, "unless otherwise ordered."

In ascertaining the intention of Congress, I lay it down as a rule, which I suppose will not be controverted, that all political powers under our free institutions are trust powers, and not rights, liberties, or immunities, belonging personally to the officer. I also lay it down as a rule not less incontrovertible, that trust powers are necessarily limited (unless there be some express provision to the contrary) to the subject-matter and object of the trust. This brings us to the question, What is the subject and object of the trust in this case? The whole section relates to deposites-to the safe and faithful keeping of the public funds. With this view they are directed to be made in the Bank. With the same view, and in order to increase the security, power was conferred on the secretary to withhold the deposites; and, with the same view, he is directed to report his reasons for the removal, to Congress. All have one common object, the security of the public funds. To this point the whole section converges. The language of Congress, fairly understood, is, We have selected the Bank because we confide in it as a safe and faithful agent to keep the public money; but, to prevent the abuse of so important a trust, we invest the secretary with power to remove the deposites, with a view to their increased security. And lest the secretary, on his part, should abuse so important a trust, and in order still farther to increase that security, we direct, in case of removal, that he shall report his reasons. It is obvious, under this view of the subject, that the secretary has no right to act in relation to the deposites but with a view to their increased security; that he has no right to order them to be withheld from the Bank so long as the funds are safe, and the Bank has faithfully performed the duties imposed in relation to them; and not even then, unless the deposites can be placed in safer and more faithful hands. That such was the opinion of the executive in the first instance, we have demonstrative proof in the message of the President to Congress at the close of the last session, which placed the subject of the removal of the deposites exclusively on the question of their safety; and that such was also the opinion of the House of Representatives then, we have equally conclusive proof from the vote of that body that the public funds in the Bank were safe, which was understood, at that time, on all sides, by friends and foes, as deciding the question of the removal of the deposites.

The extent of the power intended to be conferred being established, the ques

tion now arises, Has the secretary transcended its limit? It can scarcely be necessary to argue this point. It is not even pretended that the public deposites were in danger, or that the Bank had not faithfully performed all the duties imposed on it in relation to them, nor that the secretary had placed the money in a safer or in more faithful hands. So far otherwise, there is not a man who hears me who will not admit that the public moneys are now less safe than they were in the Bank of the United States. And I will venture to assert that not a capitalist can be found who would not ask a considerably higher per centage to ensure them in their present, than in the place of deposite designated by law. If these views are correct, and I hold them to be unquestionable, the question is decided. The secretary has no right to withhold the deposites from the Bank. There has been, and can be but one argument advanced in favour of his right, which has even the appearance of being tenable-that the power to withhold is given in general terms, and without qualification, "unless the secretary otherwise direct." Those who resort to this argument must assume the position, that the letter ought to prevail over the clear and manifest intention of the act. They must regard the power of the secretary, not as a trust power, limited by the subject and the object of the trust, but as a chartered right, to be used according to his discretion and pleasure. There is a radical defect in our mode of construing political powers, of which this and many other instances afford -striking examples, but I will give the secretary his choice: either the intention or the letter must prevail: he may select either, but cannot be permitted to take one or the other as may suit his purpose. If he chooses the former, he has transcended his powers, as I have clearly demonstrated. If he selects the latter, he is equally condemned, as he has clearly exercised power not comprehended in the letter of his authority. He has not confined himself simply to withholding the public moneys from the Bank of the United States, but he has ordered them to be deposited in other banks, though there is not a word in the section to justify it. I do not intend to argue the question whether he had a right to order the funds withheld from the United States Bank to be placed in the state banks, which he has selected; but I ask, How has he acquired that right? It rests wholly on construction-on the supposed intention of the Legislature, which, when it gives a power, intends to give all the means necessary to render it available. But, as clear as this principle of construction is, it is not more clear than that which would limit the right of the secretary to the question of the safe and faithful keeping of the public funds; and I cannot admit that the secretary shall be permitted to resort to the letter or to construction, as may best be calculated to enlarge his power, when the right construction is denied to those who would limit his power by the clear and obvious intention of Congress.

I might here, said Mr. Calhoun, rest the question of the power of the secretary over the deposites, without adding another word. I have placed it on grounds from which no ingenuity, however great, or subtlety, however refined, can remove it; but such is the magnitude of the case, and such my desire to give the reasons of the secretary the fullest consideration, that I shall follow him through the remainder of his reasons.

That the secretary was conscious that the first position which he assumed, and which I have considered, was untenable, we have ample proof in the precipitancy with which he retreated from it. He had scarcely laid it down, when, without illustration or argument, he passed with a rapid transition, and, I must say, a transition as obscure as rapid, to another position wholly inconsistent with the first, and in assuming which, he expressly repudiates the idea that the safe and faithful keeping of the public funds had any necessary connexion with his removal of the deposites; his power to do which, he places on the broad and unlimited ground that he had a right to make such disposition of them as the public interest or the convenience of the people might require. I have