the precious metals, and for which object the power of coining money, and regulating the value thereof, was expressly conferred by the Constitution. I know how long and how sincerely this opinion has been entertained, and under how many difficulties it has been maintained. It is not my intention to attempt to change an opinion so firmly fixed; but I may be permitted to make a few observations, in order to present what appears to me to be the true question in reference to this constitutional point, in order that we may fully comprehend the circumstances under which we are placed in reference to it.

With this view, I do not deem it necessary to inquire whether, in conferring the power to coin money, and to regulate the value thereof, the Constitution intended to limit the power strictly to coining money and regulating its value, or whether it intended to confer a more general power over the currency; nor do I intend to inquire whether the word coin is limited simply to the metals, or may be extended to other substances, if, through a gradual change, they may become the medium of the general circulation of the world. I pass these points. Whatever opinion there may be entertained in reference to them, we must all agree, as a fixed principle in our system of thinking on constitutional questions, that the power under consideration, like other powers, is a trust power; and that, like all such powers, it must be so exercised as to effect the object of the trust as far as it may be practicable. Nor can we disagree that the object of the power was to secure to these states a safe, uniform, and stable currency. The nature of the power, the terms used to convey it, the history of the times, the necessity, with the creation of a common government, of having a common and uniform - circulating medium, and the power conferred to punish those who, by counterfeiting, may attempt to debase and degrade the coins of the country, all proclaim this to be the object.

It is not my purpose to inquire whether, admitting this to be the object, Congress is not bound to use all the means in its power to give this safety, this stability, this uniformity to the currency, for which the power was conferred; nor to inquire whether the states are not bound to abstain from acts, on their part, inconsistent with them; nor to inquire whether the right of banking, on the part of a state, does not directly, and by immediate consequence, injuriously affect the currency-whether the effect of banking is not to expel the specie currency, which, according to the assumption that this is a hard-money government, it was the object of the Constitution to furnish, in conferring the power to coin money; or whether the effect of banking does not necessarily tend to diminish the value of a specie currency as certainly as clipping or reducing its weight would; and whether it has not, in fact, since its introduction, reduced the value of the coins one half. Nor do I intend to inquire whether Congress is not bound to abstain from all acts, on its part, calculated to affect injuriously the specie circulation, and whether the receiving anything but specie, in its dues," must not necessarily so affect it by diminishing the quantity in circulation, and depreciating the value of what remains. All these questions I leave open. decide none of them. There is one, however, that I will decide. If Congress has a right to receive anything else than specie in its dues, they have the right to regulate its value; and have a right, of course, to adopt all necessary and proper means, in the language of the Constitution, to effect the object. It matters not what they receive, tobacco, or anything else, this right must attach to it. I do not assert the right of receiving, but I do hold it to be incontrovertible, that, if Congress were to order the dues of the government to be paid, for instance, in tobacco, they would have the right, nay, more, they would be bound to use all necessary and proper means to give it a uniform and stable valueinspections, appraisement, designation of qualities, and whatever else would be necessary to that object. So, on the same principle, if they receive bank-notes, they are equally bound to use all means necessary and proper, according to the peculiar nature of the subject, to give them uniformity, stability, and safety.

I

The very receipt of bank-notes, on the part of the government, in its dues, would, it is conceded, make them money, as far as the government may be concerned, and, by a necessary consequence, would make them, to a great extent, the currency of the country. I say nothing of the positive provisions in the Constitution which declare that "all duties, imposts, and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States," which cannot be, unless that in which they are paid should also have, as nearly as practicable, a uniform value throughout the country. To effect this, if bank-notes are received, the banking power is necessary and proper within the meaning of the Constitution; and, consequently, if the government has the right to receive bank-notes in its dues, the power becomes constitutional. Here lies, said Mr. Calhoun, the real constitutional question: Has the government a right to receive bank-notes, or not? The question is not upon the mere power of incorporating a bank, as it has been commonly argued; though even in that view there would be as great a constitutional objection to any act on the part of the executive, or any other branch of the government, which should unite any association of state banks into one system, as the means of giving the uniformity and stability to the currency which the Constitution intends to confer. The very act of so associating or uniting them into one, by whatever name called, or by whatever department performed, would be, in fact, an act of incorporation.

But, said Mr. Calhoun, my object, as I have stated, is not to discuss the constitutional questions, nor to determine whether the Bank be constitutional or not. It is, I repeat, to show where the difficulty lies: a difficulty which I have felt from the time I first came into the public service. I found then, as now, the currency of the country consisting almost entirely of bank-notes. I found the government intimately connected with the system: receiving bank-notes in its dues, and paying them away, under its appropriations, as cash. The fact was beyond my control: it existed long before my time, and without my agency; and I was compelled to act on the fact as it existed, without deciding on the many questions which I have suggested as connected with this subject, and on many of which I have never yet formed a definite opinion. No one can pay less regard to the precedent than I do, acting here, in my representative and deliberative character, on legal or constitutional questions; but I have felt from the beginning the full force of the distinction so sensibly taken by the senator from Virginia (Mr. Leigh) between doing and undoing an act, and which he so strongly illustrated in the case of the purchase of Louisiana. The constitutionality of that act was doubted by many at the time, and, among others, by its author himself; yet he would be considered a madman who, coming into political life at this late period, would now seriously take up the question of the constitutionality of the purchase, and, coming to the conclusion that it was unconstitutional, should propose to rescind the act, and eject from the Union two flourishing states and a growing territory: nor would it be an act of much less madness thus to treat the question of the currency, and undertake to suppress at once the system of bank circulation which has been growing up from the beginning of the government, which has penetrated into and connected itself with every department of our political system, on the ground that the Constitution intended a specie circulation; or who would treat the constitutional question as one to be taken up de novo, and decided upon elementary principles, without reference to the imperious state of facts.

But in raising the question whether my friends of the State Rights party can consistently vote for the measure which I have suggested, I rest not its decision on the ground that their constitutional opinion in reference to the Bank is erroneous. I assume their opinion to be correct-I place the argument, not on the constitutionality or unconstitutionality, but on wholly different ground. I lay it down, as an incontrovertible principle, that, admitting an act to be unconstitutional, but of such a nature that it cannot be reversed at once, or at least without

involving gross injustice to the community, we may, under such circumstances, vote for its temporary continuance, for undoing gradually, as the only practicable mode of terminating it, consistently with the strictest constitutional objects. The act of the last session, adjusting the tariff, furnishes an apt illustration. All of us believed that measure to be unconstitutional and oppressive, yet we voted for it without supposing that we violated the Constitution in so doing, although it allowed upward of eight years for the termination of the system, on the ground that to reverse it at once would spread desolation and ruin over a large portion of the country. I ask the principle in that case to be applied to this. It is equally as impossible to terminate suddenly the present system of paper currency, without spreading a desolation still wider and deeper over the face of the country. If it can be reversed at all-if we can ever return to

a metallic currency, it must be by gradually undoing what we have done, and to tolerate the system while the process is going on. Thus, the measure which I have suggested proposes, for the period of twelve years, to be followed up by a similar process, as far as a slow and cautious experience shall prove we may go consistently with the public interest, even to its entire reversal, if experience shall prove we may go so far, which, however, I, for one, do not anticipate; but the effort, if it should be honestly commenced and pursued, would present a case every way parallel to the instance of the tariff to which I have already referred. I go farther, and ask the question, Can you, consistently with your obligation to the Constitution, refuse to vote for a measure, if intended, in good faith, to effect the object already stated? Would not a refusal to vote for the only means of terminating it consistently with justice, and without involving the horror of revolution, amount in fact, and in all its practical consequences, to a vote to perpetuate a state of things which all must acknowledge to be eminently unconstitutional, and highly dangerous to the liberty of the country?

But I know that it will be objected that the Constitution ought to be amended, and the power conferred in express terms. I feel the full force of the objection. I hold the position to be sound, that, when a constitutional question has been agitated involving the powers of the government, which experience shall prove cannot be settled by reason, as is the case of the Bank question, those who claim the power ought to abandon it, or obtain an express grant by an amendment of the Constitution; and yet, even with this impression, I would, at the present time, feel much, if not insuperable objection, to vote for an amendment, till an effort shall be fairly made, in order to ascertain to what extent the power might be dispensed with, as I have proposed.

I hold it a sound principle, that no more power should be conferred upon the General Government than is indispensable; and if experience should prove that the power of banking is indispensable, in the actual condition of the currency of this country and of the world generally, I should even then think that, whatever power ought to be given, should be given with such restrictions and limitations as would limit it to the smallest amount necessary, and guard it with the utmost care against abuse. As it is, without farther experience, we are at a loss to determine how little or how much would be required to correct a disease which must, if not corrected, end in convulsions and revolution. I consider the whole subject of banking and credit as undergoing at this time, throughout the civilized world, a progressive change, of which I think I perceive many indications. Among the changes in progression, it appears to me there is a strong tendency in the banking system to resolve itself into two parts-one becoming a bank of circulation and exchange, for the purpose of regulating and equalizing the circulating medium, and the other assuming more the character of private banking; of which separation there are indications in the tendency of the English system, particularly perceptible in the late modification of the charter of the Bank of England. In the mean time, it would be wise in us to avail ourselves of the experience of the next few years before

any change be made in the Constitution, particularly as the course which, it seems to me, it would be advisable to pursue, would be the same, whether the power be expressly conferred or not.

I next address myself to the members of the opposition, who principally represent the commercial and manufacturing portions of the country, where the banking system has been the farthest extended, and where a larger portion of the property exists in the shape of credit than in any other section, and to whom a sound and stable currency is most necessary, and the opposite most dangerous. You have no constitutional objection: to you it is a mere question of expediency. Viewed in this light, can you vote for the measure suggested? A measure designed to arrest the approach of events which, I have demonstrated, must, if not arrested, create convulsions and revolutions; and to correct a disease which must, if not corrected, subject the currency to continued agitations and fluctuations; and, in order to give that permanence, stability, and uniformity, which is so essential to your safety and prosperity. To effect this may require some diminution of the profits of banking, some temporary sacrifice of interest; but if such should be the fact, it will be compensated more than a hundred fold by increased security and durable prosperity. If the system must advance in the present course without a check, and if explosion must follow, remember that where you stand will be the crater-should the system quake, under your feet the chasm will open that will ingulf your institutions and your prosperity.

Can the friends of the administration vote for this measure? If I understand their views, as expressed by the senator from Missouri, behind me (Mr. Benton), and the senator from New-York (Mr. Wright), and other distinguished members of the party, and the views of the President as expressed in reported conversations, I see not how they can reject it. They profess to be the advocates of a metallic currency.

I propose to restore it by the most effectual measures that can be devised; gradually and slowly, and to the extent that experience may show that it can be done consistently with a due regard to the public interest. Farther no one can desire to go. If the means I propose are not the best and most effectual, let better and more effectual be devised. If the process which I propose be too slow or too fast, let it be accelerated or retarded. Permit me to add to these views what, it appears to me, those whom I address ought to feel with deep and solemn obligation of duty. They are the advocates and the supporters of the administration. It is now conceded, almost universally, that a rash and precipitate act of the executive, to speak in the mildest terms, has plunged this country into deep and almost universal distress. You are the supporters of that measure you personally incur the responsibility by that support. How are its consequences to terminate? Do you see the end? Can things remain as they are, with the currency and the treasury of the country under the exclusive control of the executive ? And by what scheme, what device, do you propose to extricate the country and the Constitution from their present dangers?

I have now said what I intended. I have pointed out, without reserve, what I believe in my conscience to be for the public interest. May what I have said be received with favour equal to the sincerity with which it has been uttered. In conclusion, I have but to add, that, if what I have said shall in any degree contribute to the adjustment of this question, which I believe cannot be left open without imminent danger, I shall rejoice; but if not, I shall at least have the consolation of having discharged my duty.

U

IX.

SPEECH DELIVERED IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES APRIL 9, 1834, ON

THE BILL TO REPEAL THE FORCE ACT.

I HAVE, said Mr. Calhoun, introduced this bill from a deep conviction that the act which it proposes to repeal is, in its tendency, subversive of our political institutions, and fatal to the liberty and happiness of the country; which I trust to be able to establish to the satisfaction of the Senate, should I be so fortunate as to obtain a dispassionate and favourable hearing.

In resting the repeal on this ground, it is not my intention to avail my-self of the objections to the details of the act, as repugnant as many of them are to the principles of our government. In illustration of the truth of this assertion, I might select that provision which vests in the President, in certain cases, of which he is made the judge, the entire force of the country, civil, military, and naval, with the implied power of pledging the public faith for whatever expenditure he may choose to incur in its application. And, to prove how dangerous it is to vest such extraordinary powers in the executive, I might avail myself of the experience which we have had in the last few months of the aspiring character of that department of the government, and which has furnished conclusive evidence of the danger of vesting in it even a very limited discretion. It is not for me to judge of the propriety of the course which the members of this body may think proper to pursue in reference to the question under consideration; but I must say that I am at a loss to understand how any one, who regards as I do the acts to which I have referred, as palpable usurpations of power, and as indicating on the part of the executive a dangerous spirit of aggrandizement, can vote against the bill under consideration, and thereby virtually vote to continue in the President the extraor dinary and dangerous power in question.

But it may be said that the provision of the act which confers this power will expire, by its own limitation, at the termination of the present session. It is true it will then cease to be law; but it is no less true that the precedent, unless the act be expunged from the statute-book, will live forever, ready, on any pretext of future danger, to be quoted as an authority to confer on the chief magistrate similar, or even more dangerous powers, if more dangerous can be devised. We live in an eventful period, and, among other things, we have had, recently, some impressive lessons on the danger of precedents. To them immediately we owe the act which has caused the present calamitous and dangerous condition of the country; which has been defended almost solely on the ground of precedents -precedents almost unnoticed at the time; but had they not existed, or had they been reversed at the time by Congress, the condition of the country would this day be far different from what it is. With this knowledge of the facts, we must see that a bad precedent is as dangerous as the bad measure itself; and in some respects more so, as it may give rise to acts far worse than itself, as in the case to which I have alluded. In this view of the subject, to refuse to vote against the repeal of the act, and thereby constitute a precedent to confer similar, or more dangerous powers hereafter, would be as dangerous as to vote for an act to vest permanently in the President the power in question.

But I pass over this and other objections to the details not much less formidable. I take a higher stand against the act: I object to the principle in which it originated, putting the details aside, on the ground, as I