27TH CONG....3D SESS.

sorbing at every revolution the profits of the industry of the mass, and aggregates them for the few; the quantity is not diminished, but it has the capacity of being almost indefinitely enlarged.

The debt of Austria is £80 000,000, or near $400,000,000; and her revenues the last year were insufficient to meet the demands upon her treasury. France owes £191,893,053, or near $1,000,000,000; and her income is inadequate to her wants, and she is in search of new objects of taxation. Hol land owes €100,000,000; Denmark, £16,000,000; Prussia, £29,000,000; Naples, £20,000,000; Russia owes £50,000,000, or near $250,000,000; and Spain acknowledges a debt of £89,600,000, and she has 202,030,000 which she repudiates. But it is all the same; she pays none, and can pay none. Portugal's debt is £19,086,122, and she is unable to pay anything, and she has suspended. But it is cruel to turn to the South American Governments; they have all suspended, except the Brazils, whose debt is £15,500,000; and they are now enjoying all the p osperity of an expanded paper system, which will soon burst, and involve the Government in ruin and bankruptcy.

From this cursory review of the debts of nations, it is apparent that their debts can never be paid: and if it be conceded (which I do not, because the revenue in each one of the abovenamed nations, so far as I am advised, is now short of the accruing demands upon their treasury) that the interest on this stupendous mass of indebtedness will be met, yet generation after generation will be curs d with its weight-will be born with this pack-saddle on their backs, to be rode and spurred, and driven by the fundmongers and stockjob. bers of the world. I am further persuaded, in my own min l, that the debts of many of the States cannot, and will never, be paid. But shall we desert our country in that event? Shall we desert it as a den of thieves and swindlers? Withered be the heart that could conceive such a thought; blis tered be the tongue that could utter such a sentiment: In that event, what will become of the gentleman from New York? [Mr. GRANGER.] Which way will he go? To Texas? Why, she has twice repudiated. Moreover, the slave owners might give the gentleman too warm a reception in that quarter. To Mexico? She is bankrupt, and has attempted to repudiate her honest debts. To England, the arrogant tone of whose citizens the gentleman has attempted to reflect on this floor?—to England, the great highway robber of the world?to England, where he could join the hypocritical abolitionists in oppressing and aggrieving outraged Ireland?-to England, where 26,000,000 of pretended freemen are laboring and toiling by day, and shivering with cold and hunger, poverty and distress, by night, to pay the interest on her public debt, owned by 289,751 lords and proprietors of the country-a debt contracted in fraud, and perpetuated in the blood of her people-a debt which is so grinding the face of the great laboring mass, as will soon render their sufferings intolerable? Sir, England-exacting and purse-proud England-is the very mother of repudiation. The instances in her history are too numerous for me now to enu. merate. I pass by her frequent depreciation of the current coin of the kingdom; thereby defrauding her public creditors of the difference. I pass by the unprincipled robbery of the depositors of their money in the exchequer, in the reign of Charles Il, on the faith of the Government; by which thousands were directly or indirectly ruined. But the very foundation of her present debt is an enormous fraud. The Government borrowed $1,328,526, at 8 per cent., pledging her faith for its redemption; to be spent, I believe, in part, for her navy.

The Government soon suspended payment for one year, then indefinitely; the public creditors were involved in ruin; they brought suit in the courts, and, after twelve years, obtained judgment. The Chancellor of the Exchequer overruled the courts, and, on an appeal to the House of Lords, they reversed the decision of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The debt, by this time, amounted to £3,428,526 Parliament, at this stage, took it in hand, after a lapse of twenty-five years, and, by statute, declared the creditors should receive only 3 per cent. on the principal, and that the principal

Assumption of State Debts-Mr. J. Thompson.

could be redeemed with one-half. Thus, a debt of $17,000 000, at 8 per cent., was reduced to $3,000,000, at 3 per cent. Hume speaks of it thus: "It was a forfeiture of public credit, and an open violation of the most solemn engagements, both for. eign and domestic."

In the Long Parliament, the church lands were seized and disposed of. The money arising therefrom was appropriated by the Government. Afterwards, the lands were restored to the church; but the money received was most unjustly retained.

Again, in 1797, the Government forced the bank to suspend specie payment; and not long after, Parliament adopted this resolution: That the notes of the Bank of England have been, and are at this time, held in public estimation equivalent to the legal coin of the same value, and generally accepted as such in all pecuniary transactions to which such coin is lawfully applicable." At that very time bank notes were 10 per cent. below par. Parliament, therefore, declared a falsehood; and they fol lowed it up by passing a law, which punished with fine and imprisonment all persons who received it, or paid it away, for less than its par value. The bank no'es afterwards depreciated 20, 30, 40, and, at one time, to 41 per cent. All public creditors were required to receive this depreciated paper, under heavy penalties for refusal; and the computation that, on the debt contracted before 1800, she gained (and of course creditors lost) by their payment of depreciated paper £37,000,000, er $137,000,000. This was a very pretty financial opera. tion. If Mississippi were allowed to pay her debt in the depreciated bank paper of that State, she would soon be vastly easy on that score.

With these facts staring them in the face, does it not require a large share of Christian forbear. ance to hear Englishmen talk of the good faith and bad faith of nations? And how contemptible and humiliating it is to find an American citizen join. ing in the cry, and speaking of American bad faith and American dishonor, whose whole history presents the fairest page of any nation on earth on this subject! But if a man do not claim the rights and respect due to a gentleman, the world will not accord them to him: so it is with a nation. And it is due to England to say, that, when she robs and swindles, she does it boldly, by a statute, which receives the sanction of his most gracious Majesty, on whose vast empire, it is boastingly said, the sun

never sets.

Suppose the gentleman should go to France: will be then have reached a soil which has never been stained with the damnable sin of repudiation? It was here (as Sir Walter Scott has it) "that the depreciated assignats were raised to par by guillotining those who sold or bought them for less than their full value.". The livre current contains less than one sixty-sixth part of the coin it did in former times.

In 1797, the debt of France was $966,000,000; but, in order to continue the invasion of Germany and Italy; the army required $56,000,000; and it became necessary to make a decisive movement with the revenue of the Government; and this expedient was fallen upon: Two-thirds of the public debt-amounting to $644,000,000-was struck off, without any notice to the fund-holder, and without any excuse, save the wants of the army; leaving a public debt of only $322,000,000. Here is a flagrant and most outrageous repudiation of an amount more than double the whole indebtedness of the United States. Although this must be an acknowledged wrong, yet I like the spirit which prompts this justification by the French historian, M. Thiers: "Measures of this nature inflict, like revolutions, much individual hardship; but people must submit to them when they have become inevitable." The spirit which actuated the French historian in defending his country, forms a striking contrast to that evinced by the gentleman from New York.

Will the gentleman go to Spain? The requirements of her treasury this year are about $60,000,000. She has strained her taxing powers to the ut most, and the expectation is that the revenue will not exceed $40,000,000; and it is suggested that a proposition will be made to borrow money from the Shylocks of England, and allow the duties upon

H. of Reps.

imports to be collected in English ports. But Spain is hopelessly bankrupt. It is no better with Austria and Holland, although, by heavy exertion, they continue to pay; but they have both twice repudiated heavy amounts. Where, then, will the gentleman go? To Portugal, Greece, Colombia, Buenos Ayres, Chili, Peru? They are all bankrupt. Where will he go? I judge it would suit him best to ingratiate himself with the Ottoman Porte. There he will find many a bright eye and ruddy cheek, and, in the opinion of my friend from Illinois, the gentleman excels in the parlor and drawing-room.

Now let us return to our own country. And how does she stand in history in regard to her own indebtedness? It is well known that, during the revolutionary war, Congress ordered to be issued, on the faith of the Government, $200,000,000 of what are called continental bills.* I learn from the Treasury Department, however, that $240,000,000 were de facto issued; and the last act in the drama is thus graphically drawn by Mr. Jefferson:

"It continued to circulate and depreciate till the end of 1780 when it had fallen to 75 for 1; and the money circulated from the French army being by that time sensible in all the States north of the Potomac, the paper ceased its circulation altogether in those States. In Virginia and North Carolina, it continued a year longer; within which time it fell to 1,000 for 1, and then expired, as it had done in the other States, without a single groan. Not a murmur was heard, on this occasion, among the people. On the contrary, universal congratulations took place on their seeing this gigantic mass, whose dissolution had threatened convulsions which should shake their infant confederacy to its centre, quietly interred in its grave. Foreigners, indeed, who do not, like the natives, feel indulgence for its memory, as of a being which has vindicated their liberties, and fallen in the moment of victory, have been loud, and still are loud, in their complaints. A few of them have reason; but the most noisy of them are not the best of them. They are persons who have become bankrupt by unskilful attempts at commerce with America. That they may have some pretext to offer to their creditors, they have bought up great masses of this dead money in America, where it is to be had at 5,000 for 1; and they show the certificates of their paper possessions, as if they had all died in their hands, and had been the cause of their bankrupt. cy."

This was not a dishonorable repudiation. Oh no! But here was a most sacred debt left unprovided for. I cast no censure upon our ancestors or ourselves for failing to redeem the national faith. It has all turned out right.

But again. The States issued $200,000,000 of bills of credit, as Mr. Jefferson estimates it; and what became of all that vast amount? Have the glorious Old Thirteen ever paid all their debts? If so, when? and how? Did Virginia, North Carolina, Maryland, Pennsylvania, or Massachusetts ever discharge their debts, for the payment of which they pledged their faith? Not a dollar, so far as I know and believe, was ever redeemed. And shall we put down all these revolutionary States as dishonored repudiators, for refusing to pay their honest debts? Not at all. They did right. Mr. Jefferson explains it in this way:

"Every one through whose hands a bill passed, lost on that bill what it lost in value during the time it was in his hands. This was a real tax on him." "A mode of taxation the most oppressive of all, because the most unequal of all."

Here is a history in advance of many of the State debts. Such is my candid opinion.

But, for the benefit of some of those who try to echo foreign sentiment and feeling on this floor, I wish to read another extract from Mr. Jefferson's letter to Mr. A. Stewart, written in Paris in 1786.

"American reputation in Europe is not such as to be flattering to its citizens. Two circumstances are particularly objected to us the non-payment of our debts, and the want of energy in our Government. These discourage a connexion with us. I own it to be my opinion that good will arise from the destruction of our credit. I see nothing else which can restrain our disposition to luxury, and to the change of those manners which alone can preserve republican government."

Here you find the sentiment and feeling of a Republican and a patriot. All this was done by the most glorious class of politicians that ever lived. And suppose, in those days, a member of the American Congress had attempted to rise in his place and cast obloquy upon any member of this confederacy for refusing to provide for the payment of her honest debts, for which she had pledged her faith; the murmurs of discontent, if not

*NOTE. Since the delivery of this speech, I find, by refer ring to the appendix to Mr. INGERSOLL'S speech on the fiscal bank bill, that three hundred and sixty millions of dollars of continental money was issued as early as the year 1778, which was never redeemed. I wish this appendix could be read by every freeman in the United States.

27TH CONG....3D SESS.

of contempt, would have filled these halls, and the impudent member would have been silenced. Sir, when they formed that banner of stars and stripes, all felt an equal interest in the reputation of each; and if the brightness upon any one was to be dimned by any means, they all felt a holy horror at committing the unholy deed. But what have we seen since this question has been up. A serious effort made to cast reproach and disgrace on one of these States. Suppose the gentleman should succeed, and persuade the world that one of these States has acted dishonorably, unworthily. How much has he gained? Would it give that gentleman any pleasure to damn the reputation of Mississippi? When her name for honor and fidelity was gone, would it produce a thrill in his heart for the world to point to him and say, "Thou didst it."

Does the gentleman suppose Mississippi will be induced to retrace her steps at his instance? Sir, I can quarrel with a man-if need be, fight himafterwards explain the matter between us, forget the insult, shake hands, and be friends. But I can never forget or forgive a man who abuses my lege sovereign, my protector, my State, my country. As soon would I forget or forgive the slanderer who would spit his foul spleen upon the fair name of my mother. And I regret that there could have been found one individual on this floor who should endeavor to bring into disrepute the dear name of my beloved State. I let the papers pass-I care but little for them; they delight in slander, and to them it is sweeter far to publish racy abuse than common-place commendation. Moreover, they have their reward. But, sir, who is this Goliah of Gath, who volunteers to make a deadly pass at Mississippi. Who sets himself up to teach my constituents lessons in the code of honor, and to preach to them morality, good faith, honesty, and fair dealing? The boasted advocate of a "high protective tariff," a system of legislative robbery, laying burdens upon one portion of the Union and conferring bounties upon the other; and taking from the pockets of one part of the people without their consent, and bestowing upon another.

Again, he is the advocate of the system which borrows all and pays none. In his own State, he acted with the party who desired to run the State still further in debt, by appropriations and loans; while he refused to levy any additional tax to increase the revenue, when it was well known that the income was unequal to the accruing demands. And I put this question to the gen tleman: Which is the greatest political sinnerthe legislator who borrows money and squanders it, without providing for its repayment; or he who succeeds, and, finding the debt unprovided for, refuses to levy burdens upon his constituents for its payment? In my opinion, the first deserves the more decided censure. This is the identical individual who headed, in his own State, the great anti-masonic humbug movement. This is the self-same gentleman who authorized Gen. Harrison, at Richmond, to say he was no Abolitionist.

Mr. GRANGER here interposed, and said that he had given no such authority to General Harri

son.

Mr. THOMPSON replied: I speak from rumor. But does the gentleman deny that he gave assurance, through one of his political friends, to the Senate of the United States, when his confirmation as Postmaster General was pending before that body, that he was no Abolitionist?

Mr. GRANGER then said he had never done so, in the sense in which the gentleman understood that term.

Mr. THOMPSON said he understood the gentleman distinctly to avow himself an Abolitionis', when interrogated at the last session by the gentiemau from Tennessee, [Mr. WATTERSON ]*

*NOTE.-Extract from the speech of Mr. WATTERSON of Tennessee, on the veto message:

"The witness relied upon by Mr. WATTERSON, is a Mr. A. Sawyer.

1st. Mr. GRANGER has said that he had yielded to the doctrines advocated by Mr. Slade, in his speech in regard to the District of Columbia, and that the notion of implied faith on the part of Virginia and Maryland inust be given up. "Mr. GRANGER rose and said, That is true.

2d. Mr. GRANGER has said, that whenever it could be proved

Mr. GRANGER said that he never was an Abolitionist; and he assured the gentleman that if he was one, he would take as much pride in avowing it, as he now did ia denying it.

Mr. THOMPSON continued: The gentleman, after all this, has some nerve, to rise in his place and talk of fair dealing and straightforward conduct.

The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. ADAMS] Strikes the wrong key when he supposes we are to be bullied into the assumption of State debts. The lesson we learned from his father was to do right, and let consequences take care of then.selves; and, "sink or swim, survive or perish, live or die," we will stand by our judgments, and never counsel with our fears, in our legislative action. If Great Britain undertakes to become the high sheriff of the world, and goes out on this Quixotic expedition of collecting from the nations of the earth their debts, she will find herself greatly mistaken. In such an effort, in my opinion, she will soon be willing to enter upon the executions "satisfied in full."

The cry in this country has been "confidence, confidence." We must restore the confidence of the country. This was the catch-word in the great struggle of 1840-and that, too, by the very same party who, deceived and misled by the false reasoning of the bankers and financiers, sustained the banks in their open and acknowledged repudiation of their debis, while they declared the whole course of the opposing party was war upon the banks. Their defalcations gradually destroyed all confidence in banks. Next followed the failure of the speculators; and they cried out for the same relief extended to the banks, by legalizing their suspensions of payment. These advocates for the restoration of confidence granted their request in the shape of stay-laws and stop-laws in the States, and of a bankrupt law here, which enabled them to repudiate their debts. This destroyed all confidence between individuals. Next, the tax-payer began to complain of his burdens; and he could not see the reason why banks and individuals should be released from their obligations, and yet the State should be required to pay the uttermost farthing on her imprudent contracts.

This defection of the tax payer impaired greatly the confidence in State credit. Then, for the relief of the States, unholy hands were laid upon the land revenue, and it was distributed among the States. This fund did not restore confidence and State credit; but its withdrawal impaired in no slight degree the confidence in the credit of Federal Government. Now, to consummate and destroy ali confi. dence in that credit of the General Government, it is but necessary to authorize the issue of two hundred millions of bonds, for the payment of the State debts, when we can with the utmost difficulty command the means adequate to meet the ordinary expenditures of the Government. The acting of the last scene in this great drama will cause the total loss of all confidence in the Government itself, and a fatal stab will be given to constitutional liberty.

The gentleman from Maryland asks, What, then, is to be done? I say, economize your expenses, and husband your resources; borrow no more money, and create no additional debt; repeal your prohibitory tariff duties, and thus str ke off the shackles from commerce. Say to the States, in decisive tones, This Government has no authority to take upon its shoulders your burdens; and it is vain, and worse than vain, to harbor such an expectation: meet your difficulties like men: what can be done, do; and do it frankly and fearlessly. Let us adopt for this Federal Government a settled financial policy, and let all look to the fruits of regular industry for relief. In this plain way, my word for it, this nation will soon be prosperous and happy.

The morning hour now expired.

that slaveholders had called to their aid United States troops to put down an insurrection on the part of the slaves against the whites; or whenever it could be made to appear that United States troops had been used to sustain or protect slavery, that moment Congress would have power to abolish slavery in the different States.

"Mr. GRANGER admitted that, also, was true."

H. of Reps.

REMARKS OF MR. CAMPBELL,

OF SOUTH CAROLINA:

In the House of Representatives, February 24, 1843.-On House bill No. 649.

Mr. CAMPBELL said that the object of the bill under consideration was to suspend the operation of the second section, or districting clause, of the apportionment act, so far as it was calculated to affect the legality of elections to the 28th Congress.

From present indications, he thought that no reasonable doubt could be entertained, if unnecessary collisions were avoided, that this important section would be adopted in all the States. The opposition to it, at first so violent, was gradually yielding to an enlightened public opinion. The tocsin which at first so loudly proclaimed a danger to the rights of the States, that never existed, has almost ceased to sound; and, in every State of the Union except one, where the Legislature had assembled since its pas sage, the people, he believed, had, through their immediate constitutional organs, given unequivocal indications of their approbation of its principle. The exception to which he alluded was New Hampshire; and he had reason to believe that, if the excitement which unfortunately prevailed in that respectable State was allowed to subside, she would not be long in discharging a duty which is due, not less to her own high character for respect to the laws, than to the obligations she is under to the States united with her in the Federal compact.

The condition of things, however, in New Hamp shire, is not the only obstacle to carrying the districting clause of the apportionment law into immediate operation. In Georgia, the election for Congress had taken place under the pre-existing general-ticket system, previous to the first meeting of her Legislature after the passage of the appor. tionment law; and although that body proceeded almost immediately to divide the State into congressional districts for the 29th and subsequent Congresses, yet, so far as the elections for the 28th Congress were concerned, the evil was without remedy; for, the election being held, the Legislature was incompetent to set it aside and order another in its place the Constitution of the United States having vested in this House the exclusive right to judge of the "elections, returns, and qualifications of its members." The elections for Congress had also taken place for the next Congress, in Missouri, under the general-ticket system, previous to the meeting of her Legislature, now in session; and which body, he was informed, would, before its adjournment, divide the State into districts for the 29th and subsequent Congresses.

[Mr. EDWARDS, of Missouri, here rose and stated that he had just learned that the bill recently pending to divide Missouri into congressional districts had been lost.]

Mr. CAMPBELL was sorry to hear it; but, remark ing that the intelligence did not affect his argument, continued. The election for Congress under the general ticket will also occur in Mississippi before the meeting of her Legislature, which will not regularly convene until about the time of the meeting of Congress, and where it is well understood that the Governor will not call an extra session.

Under these circumstances, Mr. C. thought that not only sound policy, but justice, required the passage of the bill under consideration, or one of a similar character. If Congress refused to do so, the next House of Representatives must exclude the representatives of the people of at least three States, who have had no opportunity of complying with the law.

He had been asked why he was so desirous to procure the suspension of a law which, at the last session of Congress, he had not only supported, but had introduced? He would state, in reply, that his opinion in relation to the districting clause of the apportionment law had undergone no change, either in relation to its expediency or constitutionality. Indeed, the more he had reflected upon it, the more he was convinced of its salutary conservative principles. The reasons why he desired its temporary suspension were simply these: First, by a course of conciliation, to receive its ultimate triumph; second, to avoid the confusion and delay that will otherwise certainly occur at the next session of Congress; and,

27TH CONG....SD SESS.

third, to enable the people of those States where no provisions have been made for district elections, and particularly of those States where the people have had no opportunity of conforming to the law, to be represented at the commencement of the next Congress.

It was true, he had been informed, previous to the final passage of the apportionment law, that in some of the States the elections would be held under the existing regulations, previous to the regular time of the meeting of their Legislatures; but, in endeavoring to obtain the passage of a law which contained principles, as he thought, vital to the existence of our institutions, he was unwilling to encumber it with details, suggested by the accidental condition of things that existed in some of the States. Nor did he suppose that any evil would probably result from such a course, beyond the expenses of an extra session of the Legislature in States so situated-an expense that would have been tenfold compensated to those having it to pay, by affording them an opportunity of being represented in the next Congress by Representatives freely chosen by themselves, and elected upon principles in conformity with the principles of the Constitution.

Mr. C. here expressed his disappointment, surprise, and regret, that persons who had been elevated to the chief magistracy, under the free institutions of any of the States of this Union, should manifest such a contempt for the opinions of the people by whom they were elevated, as to decide for them, instead of allowing them to decide for themselves the momentous question of whether they would, or would not, be represented in the 28th Congress in conformity to the provisions of the existing law. Such, however, had unfortunately been the case. In two of the States, from the Governors refusing to call an extra session of their respective Legislatures, the elections have come on under circumstances in which the people have had no possible opportunity of deciding this important question for themselves. In another State, the same evil would certainly occur. Persons, thus chosen contrary to law, will present themselves at the bar of the next House of Representatives claiming admission to seats; and, considering the party aspect which the subject has unfortunately and unaccountably assumed, unless this bill or one of a similar character is adopted, a collision will probably occur, such as has never before been witnessed in a legis lative hall-a collision which, however little we may care for the consequences of it, to ourselves personally, it is the part of wisdom and of patriotism rather to avoid, than voluntarily and unnecessarily encounter; particularly as such a collision will rather endanger than insure the triumph of those great conservative principles, which the universal adoption of the districting clause of the apportionment law will establish and perpetuate; and which he believed not only to be important, but essential to the existence of our institutions.

Among the considerations which could not fail to recommend the districting clause of the apportionment law to the confidence of the American people, he enumerated:

1st. Its importance in restoring uniformity in elections, and equality of political influence in the House of Representatives to the citizen population of the different States.

2d. The preservation of the freedom of elections, which could not exist where the general-ticket system prevailed, and where the dearest, most sacred, bloodbought right of American citizens-that of voting for persons of their own choice to represent themwas reduced to the poor privilege of sanctioning at the polls the edicts of a few political jugglers, who form themselves into a self-constituted oligarchy, to rule and direct the elections of the State.

3d. Its importance in restoring the Democratic principle of the Government, now entirely destroyed wherever the general-ticket system prevails.

4th. To preserve the influence of the small States from being engulphed in the vortex of the universal adoption of the general-ticket system-a crisis to which we were rapidly hastening, and to which, but for the action of Congress, we would soon have arrived.

5th. To enable minorities to be represented, which was essential to freedom in a representative Government; and whose voice is entirely silenced in this hall, from all the States where the general ticket prevails.

6th. To preserve the representation of feelings, and interests, and opinions, from different sections of the country, without respect to geographical lines; and thus to guard against those concentrated movements of the North against the South and the South against the North; the first effect of which would be the oppression of the minority section, and ultimately the dissolution of the Union.

These, and other considerations, cannot fail to recommend the districting clause of the apportionment law to the confidence of the people, and, if left to operate upon their unbiased judgments, must insure to it universal approbation. Let us not, then, (said Mr. C.) jeopard, by an attempt at coercion, what we shall certainly obtain by a course of conciliation. This Government originated, and must be maintained, in a spirit of conciliation and compromise. It rests upon the confidence and affections of the people for its support; and every difference of opinion, honestly entertained, is entitled to be treated with respect. If, then, the delusion still unhappily prevails in some of the States, that this law of Congress is an aggression on State rights, time for reflection, and not an attempt at coercion, is our remedy. And when the people become convinced (as they soon will, if causes of excitement are removed) that the action of Congress has not relieved the State Legislatures from the obligations imposed upon them by the Constitution, they will demand the adoption of such regulations as are necessary to carry it into effect.

If the bill under consideration be adopted, all immediate excitement will subside, and the law will go quietly, peacefully, and universally into operation. If the bill is not adopted, the spirit of resistance will be kept alive, and perhaps the ultimate fate of the law itself be rendered doubtful. But even if at the next session of Congress it should be trampled in the dust by a party majority, he had the consolation to believe that the enormities of the general-ticket system being now laid before the country, and the attention of the people attracted to them, it would be universally repudiated, and our institutions saved from the evils under which they were laboring from its partial, and the danger of still greater evils to which they were exposed from its universal adoption. The seed is sown, and has taken root; which, whether the districting clause is treated as a nullity, or repealed, or remains upon the statute-book, will produce through all the States, in a very few years, the adoption of its principles.

There were other considerations which demanded imperatively the passage of this bill. Under the present depressed state of the demand for agricultural products, everything like a speculative demand for the public lands has terminated. Add to this, that under the pressure of the existing system of exorbitant cash duties, our import trade had rapidly declined; and it was certainly probable that an empty treasury and an indebted Government would, at the next meeting of Congress, demand the immediate attention of the House of Representatives.

Gentlemen cannot have forgotten the scene which occurred here at the commencement of the 26th Congress, when, in consequence of the difference of opinion tha existed in relation to the election returns from the State of New Jersey, party feeling was excited to a degree of phrensy, that silenced for a time the voice of reason and moderation; and more than three weeks were spent in scenes of tumult, before this House was organized. If difficulties in the election from a single State were sufficient to produce this effect, what may we not expect when persons claiming to be the Representatives of three or four States, not elected in conformity to law, shall claim to be admitted to seats?

Confident as he was of the constitutionality of the existing law, he could have no hesitation, however disagreeable it might be if its operation was not suspended, to reject the pretensions of every person not elected in conformity to its provisions. But

H. of Reps.

what he conceived to be the path of das not equally plain to others; and he could not forget the threats that had been made by its opponents, to treat it as a nullity, and trample it under foot. He trusted that such an outrage would never be perpetrated on the floor of an American Congress; but, in the pres ent state of party feeling, he could not doubt that party enthusiasts would be returned to the next Congress, who would endeavor to carry this threat into execution, and who, if they succeed in nothing else, may at least produce confusion and delay.

Sir, (said Mr. C.,) I do not repudiate the existence of party. On the contrary, when stimulated by patriotism, and controlled by reason, I acknowledge its benefits in the administration of the affairs of Government. But when these barriers are broken down, and party becomes the mere plaything of passions that contend against and inflame each otherof resentments that seek for gratification, and of ambition that looks to its own aggrandizement—it has ever been, and will ever be, the bane of Republics. Sir, if the fate of this Republic could be written on the walls of this Capitol, as was the fate of Babylon on the palace of her kings,-party-party-party would be the inscription.

If this bill, offered in a spirit of conciliation, did not pass, he hoped that the friends of order would march to the polls with a banner on which shall be engraved "The Constitution and laws passed in conformity thereto;" and that every candidate for Congress will be called upon to declare before the people whether he intends to resist by force the existing law, at the risk of turning this hall of legislation into a scene of tumult, and confusion, and perhaps of bloodshed. The opponents of the districting clause of the apportionment law may be assured, let them be ever so determined to trample it under foot, that there will be others here equally determined to maintain it. The bill under consideration afforded a common ground, upon which the friends and opponents of the measure might meet without any surrender of principle; and while its adoption would remove the danger of the dreadful conflict that may otherwise occur at the next session of Congress, it will insure the ultimate triumph of the law itself. He also supposed the possibility of an extra session of Congress; and asked if the House of Representatives would not present a most interesting spectacle, if it should pass the entire time, that ought to be devoted at such a session to the interests of the country, in vain attempts to organize? The only possible means of avoiding the danger of such a result, was to adopt the bill under consideration, or one of a similar character.

He would now reply to the objection that had been suggested by the gentleman from Tennessee, [Mr. TURNEY,] since he had commenced addressing the House, and to which the gentleman requested an answer, to wit: "That Congress has no right, by law, to affect the validity of elections that had already occurred." Mr. C. had anticipated this objection, and thought that he was prepared to give to it a satisfactory answer; and, although he admitted that Congress was not competent by law to declare an election void, that was good at the time that it occurred, he insisted that the converse of the proposition was not true.

Congress, clearly, has no right by law to declare an act penal, which was not so when performed; for such a law would be ex post facto in its operation, and unconstitutional. But, although Congress has not the power to make an act penal, which was innocent when performed, it has an indisputable right, for good and sufficient reason, to remit from a penalty that has been incurred: provided that, by so doing, no private right, nor the rights of any community, are injuriously affected. Congress has the right, for example, to remit penalties that have been incurred by attempted violations of the revenue laws. And, in further illustration of his position, he had alluded to a petition which had been submitted by certain railroad companies, to suspend the operation of that part of the tariff act which required that all iron laid down after the 4th of March next should pay duty. No one had denied, or could deny, that Congress had the right to grant the relief asked for in this petition, which he insisted might be done by

27TH CONG.... 3D SESS.

law, passed either before or subsequent to the 4th of March, and which might be both retrospective and prospective in its operation.

The examples to which he had alluded bore, he thought, a strong analogy to the objects of the bill under consideration, so far as the question of constitutional power was involved. There was, however, an important difference on the score of justice; for, while it was difficult to suppose that violations of the revenue could be involuntarily attempted, we knew that in two of the States the elections had taken place under circumstances in which the people have had no opportunity of conforming to the law the operation of which he proposed to suspend, so far as the elections for the next Congress were concerned. In a third State, the same thing would

occur.

Mr. C. requested gentlemen to mark the broad distinction between ex post facto and retrospective laws. Ex post facto laws were necessarily retrospective, but retrospective laws were not necessarily ex post facto; and while it was a direct and palpa. ble violation of the Constitution to pass the one, sound policy, substantial justice, and the public good frequently required the other.

In support of his views, Mr. C. quoted, from Dallas's Reports, the opinions of Justices Chase, Iredel, &c., in delivering the opinion of the court, seriatim; and, to show the operation of a repealed law on penalties incurred under it while existing, he quoted from the opinions of Chief Justice Marshall, and from the report of the Committee of Elections, to which the bill under consideration had been referred, and by which it had been reported back to the House.

In conclusion, he again urged the passage of the bill, and reiterated his conviction of the benefits that would result from its adoption.

REMARKS OF MR. PENDLETON,

OF OHIO.

In the House of Representatives, January 27, 1843On the several plans of exchequer. Mr. SPEAKER: Some weeks since, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. PROFFIT] told the House that, while at Cincinnati, on his way to Washington, he was informed that petitions in favor of the exchequer, in that city alone, had received five thousand signatures. I presume I have received all these petitions--some in favor of the Executive plan, others in favor of the congressional plan; though the advocates of the latter are few, very few, in comparison with those of the former. The gentleman who brought these petitions to Washington informed me that they contained about twelve hundred names. Be that as it may, I recognise among them many of my personal friends of both political parties, whose opinions and wishes are entitled to receive from me the most respectful consideration. Shortly to retire from public life, to renew my associations with these petitioners-an association (I trust I may say it without offence) much more agreeable to my taste and habits than anything I have met with here-I could not but be most anxious to bring myself to think with themto reconcile a vote in accordance with their wishes, to the paramount duty I owe to my country and its Constitution. Before I can give this vote, however, I feel I am obliged to remove out of my way the report of the Committee of Ways and Means upon the treasury exchequer; for I do not suppose that those of my constituents who have joined in these petitions expected that I would adopt their suggestions without reflection, or support them against the deliberate and well-matured convictions of my own judgment. The report of the Committee of Ways and Means reviewed the exchequer schemes, not only as measures of finance, but as sources of Executive power and patronage, and set forth the objections to them in both characters. Should I now vote for these schemes, or either of them, without being able to remove these objections, these petitioners, (or many of them, at all events,) I well know, would scorn the facility of my com pliance. I am acting, too, under very different responsibilities from those which rested upon my constituents when they signed these memorials: some, because they approved the plans-some, perhaps, to get rid of importunate solicitation. The objections to which I have referred, I approached with every disposition to remove them. The ar

The Exchequer-Mr. Pendleton.

gument in which they are contained, I examined with every disposition to refute it. I frankly confess I have been able to do neither the one nor the other. Thus baffled, I was willing to attribute my failure, not to the impregnable position of the report, but to the weakness of the assailant. Having since found, however, that both the gentlemen from Massachusetts [Mr. CUSHING and Mr. WINTHROP] have failed in similar attempts, I gained comfort in my own defeat, and confidence in my own conclusion.

The several reports now in the consideration of the House present three plans of finance and currency:

1. Sub-treasury.

2. The exchequer proposed by the select com

mittee.

3. The exchequer recommended by the President.

There is a fourth plan-a bank of the United States-which, to be sure, is not now before the House, but to which it may be proper to allude, as, in case of the rejection of these three, it is the only alternative. I say the only alternative; for, although the time was, (and that not very long since,) when parts of this hall would have resounded with praises of a fifth plan, yet we are told, in the minority report, by the gentlemen from South Carolina and New Hampshire, [Messrs. PICKENS and ATHERTON,] "No one contends for the State bank system." And is it so, sir? Have we this acknowledgment from that quarter? What! not one, of all its friends-not one? But yesterday, and this league of confederated banks--the pride and refuge of the Democracy-might have stood against the world; now, none so poor to do it reverence. We cannot but recollect that such things were. Let me remind gentlemen that, a short time since, such a declaration would have subjected them, as it subjected us, to the fiercest invectives of their political friends.

The deposites were removed from the Bank of the United States in the summer of 1833; and in his message of that year (the first of his second term) General Jackson said:

"I am happy to know that, through the good sense of our people, the effort to get up a panic has hitherto failed; and that, through the increased accommodations which the State banks have been enabled to afford, no public distress has followed the exertions of the bank."

In his second annual message of December, 1834, General Jackson remarks:

"Happily it is already illustrated that the agency of such an institution (Bank of the United States) is not necessary to the fiscal operations of the Government: the State banks are found fully adequate to the performance of all services which were required of the Bank of the United States, quite as promptly, and with the same cheapness. They have maintained themselves and discharged all their duties while the Bank of the United States was still powerful, and in the field as an open enemy; and it is not possible to conceive that they will find greater difficulties in their operations when that enemy shall cease to exist."

The third message, of December, 1835, contains the following strong language:

"By the use of the State banks, which do not derive their authority from the General Government, and are not controlled by its authority, it is ascer tained that the moneys of the United States can be collected and disbursed without loss or inconvenience, and that all the wants of the community in relation to exchange and currency are supplied as well as they ever have been before."

Of the State banks, General Jackson, in his last message in 1836, after a trial of between three and four years, speaks in the following decisive

manner:

"Experience continues to realize the expectations entertained as to the capacity of the State banks to perform the duties of fiscal agents of the Government. At the time of the removal of the deposites, it was alleged by the advocates of the Bank of the United States that the State banks, whatever might be the regulations of the Treasury Department, could not make the transfers required by the Government, or negotiate the domestic exchanges of the country. It is now well ascertained that the real domestic exchanges, performed through discounts by the United States Bank and its twenty-five branches, were at least one-third less than those

H. of Reps.

of the deposite banks for an equal period of time; and if a comparison be instituted between the amounts of service rendered by these institutions on the broader basis which has been used by the advocates of the United States Bank, in estimating what they consider the domestic exchanges transacted by it, the result will be still more favorable to the deposite banks."

After stating the large amounts of public money which had been transferred and paid by the deposite banks, the message adds:

"These enormous sums of money first mentioned have been transferred with the greatest promptitude and regularity; and the rates at which the exchanges have been negotiated previously to the passage of the deposite act, were generally below those charged by the Bank of the United States. Independent of these services, which are far greater than those rendered by the United States Bank and its twenty-five branches, a number of the deposite banks have, with a commendable zeal to aid in the improvement of the currency, imported from abroad, at their own expense, large sums of the precious metals for coinage and circulation."

You will observe, sir, there is nothing hypotheti cal in this language. It is not supposed, or conjectured, or anticipated. No; "it is ascertained""well ascertained;" after three years' trial, "experience continues to realize" the capacity of the State banks to accomplish all that was expected from them. This same language was held by the whole party, through the columns of their papers, and in both Houses of Congress. Why, then, does no one contend for this vaunted State-bank system now? Because it has failed. And did we not tell you it would fail? Did you not call us panic-makers? And did not you tell us then, as the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. CUSHING] tells us now, that the idea of a Bank of the United States was an explo. ded bank fallacy? This system, at all events, was your system. You lauded it to the skies. It was not possible it should fail; and when your present equally infallible expedient was first suggested, were we not told by authority, which you seldom ventured to question, "that it was against the genius of our free institutions to lock up in vaults the treasure of the nation?" "No one contends for the State-bank system now;" and yet, with this acknowledgment upon your lips of the entire failure of your first infallible plan, you ask us, upon no better authority, to take your second plan. 1 lack faith, gentlemen. When your sub-treasury shall be reinstated, if you ever have the power to reinstate it, (which, let me say, depends upon more than your getting a majority in Congress,) and shall have been in operation as long as your Statebank system has been, we shall hear from some subsequent committee, claiming infallibility for a new project, "no one contends for the sub-treasury now."

We have recently had on this floor a somewhat curious illustration of modern democracy. The gentleman from New York, [Mr. McKEON,] while he praised the liberal use of the veto power by the President, rejected, in the name of his party, the supposed advances of the gentleman from Massachusetts, [Mr. CUSHING,] because Mr. Tyler had approved and signed the bill repealing the sub-treasury law. The people had decreed this repeal; yet the Democracy cannot forgive the President for enforcing their decree. They praise him for disappointing the expectations of the people, and only censure him when he complies with them. This sub-treasury scheme was four times urged by Mr. Van Buren upon Congress, and thrice rejected; nor did it receive their reluctant assent until the 4th of July, 1840. The bill signed on that glorious day, we all recollect, was trumpeted throughout the land as a second declaration of independence; and yet, within four short months, the measure and its author were rejected together by the people of the United States, by overwhelming majorities.

Assuming, then, the sub treasury to be lying under this condemnation, let us compare with it the plan of an exchequer recommended by the special committee.

The sub-treasury provides simply a fiscal agent to keep and disburse the public money.

The exchequer proposes to do the same thing, and substantially in the same way. In addition to this, the exchequer provides for a national paper currency.

The gentleman from Massachusetts, [Mr. CUSH

27TH CONG....3D SESS.

ING,] in his speech the other day, said that a bank of the United States was wished by its advocates, "not from a desire that they might obtain loans, for there was already too much bank capital in the country, and facility enough to obtain loans;" and yet, but the moment before, the gentleman had asserted that "there existed now no bank of the United States, and very few specie-paying banks of any sort." The great error of the gentleman's whole argument is this assumption, that "there are facilities enough to make loans." This is not the case at all events, in Ohio. Our want is capital. We want, through the facilities of well regulated specie-paying banks, to be able to develop the great resources of our State, to get our produce to market, and anticipate the results of all our labor. This is our want-our only want. We have a hardy, enterprising, intelligent, industrious population of 1,800.000 souls, spread over a region of unexampled fertility-one frontier resting on the Ohio, the other on the lake, intersected in every direction by large and numerous rivers, and crowned with a temperate and healthy climate. With all these blessings of a beneficent Providence showered upon us in in. exhaustible profusion, what more can we want to be prosperous and happy? We want that very thing which, it is the boast of the gentleman, his exchequer will not and cannot give us--the facility of making temporary loans, to be repaid out of the sales of the produce of our farms and the manufactures of our shops. This facility was afforded us in the olden time by the Bank of the United States, through its branch at Cincinnati.

With the proceeds of a discounted note, the merchant purchased of the farmer his pork, flour, and other produce. While the note was running to maturity, these articles which it had purchased were shipped to market; when at inaturity, the note was taken up by a bill of exchange for the amount of the sales of these same articles. This bill the bank dis. posed of to the importing merchant, atto per cent.; who was thus enabled to pay his Eastern and foreign debts. Under this circulation, originally set in motion by judicious credit, all the channels of business were full; every interest flourished. The merchant, farmer, manufacturer, carrier, bank-all received fair and remunerating prices; all was activity; all was joy. Sir, I have not the heart to turn to the present sad reverse of this happy picture. Although, thank God, we are not quite dead, yet the Spanish epitaph may well apply to us :

"We were well

We would be better:
We took physic-
Here we lie."

Now, Mr. Speaker, I wish to compare these two measures-the sub treasury and the exchequer-with a view to their several effects upon the currency. The sub-treasury provides, that after the 30th day of June, 1843, all payments to the United States shall be made in gold and silver; and the exchequer provides that these payments shall be made in-1st, gold and silver coin; 2d, certificates of deposites, public and private; 3d, treasury notes; and 4th, notes of specie-paying banks. Let us see if there be any material difference between the two. The first medium of payment, gold and silver coin, is the same in both. By the fifth section of the bill, it is made lawful for the exchequer and its agencies, wherever established, to receive on deposite gold and silver coin, and bullion, the property of individuals, not exceeding in amount ten millions of dollars, and to give certificates of such deposite. The board of exchequer and its agencies are also authorized and directed, in all cases where the public creditors may prefer the same, to issue to them certificates of deposite for the amount of debts due to them by the United States; the amount of which certificates shall not exceed ten millions of dolJars. Power is also conferred upon the proper officers of the mint, and branch mints, to issue like certificates for the amount of all deposites of bullion, &c. for coinage. All these certificates are redeemable, on presentation, at the office, agency, or mint where issued.

Now, sir, notwithstanding all this parade and promise, a very superficial examination will show that this whole scheme is a mere substitution of a paper for a metallic currency, and adds not one cent to the amount of the circulation. Observe that all these certificates, whether public or private, by whomsoever given, represent gold and silver coin and bullion. So far as they represent the first, they add nothing to the circulation; for the gold and

The Exchequer-Mr. Pendleton.

silver coin must first be withdrawn before the certificate can get into circulation; and the coin can only again occupy the channels of circulation when the certificate is redeemed and withdrawn. To the amount that these certificates represent bullion, they increase the quantity of currency, making bullion in deposite for coinage answer the purpose of coin. These mint certificates, however, let it be recollected, only add to the circulation during the time consumed in the process of coinage; for so soon as the bullion is converted into coin, it would at once enter into the general circulation, but for the outstanding certificate which represents it, and for the redemption of which the coin must remain in deposite at the mint where the certificate is redeemable.

I greatly doubt the wisdom of the authority given to your officers to pay the public debts in certificates of deposite, which can only be given when there is in deposite, at the agency where the account is presented, an equal amount of specie belonging to the Government. You have the money lying by you idle, for which you have no immediate use; and the great merit of this contrivance is, that, instead of paying your debt with it at once, you incur all the risk of safekeeping the money, and give your note in payment of your treasury warrant. Why not let the treasury warrant circulate? There is too much of the economy of the spendthrift in this. It is a part of the clumsy apparatus by which a paper currency is to be substituted for a metallic. Treasury notes are pointed out as a third medium of payment of dues to the United States. There is, however, no provision in this bill for issuing treasury notes; there will, therefore, be none under its authority to be paid in. Those issued under existing laws are already made receivable at the treasury by those laws. Notes of specie-paying banks are also to be received; but, as they are never to be paid out by the Government, their circulation is arrested the moment they are paid in. The actual operation of this bill is to diminish the amount of the currency until these notes are presented and redeemed, when the bank may re-issue them. In the interval, the coin for their redemption is locked up from circulation in the vaults of the bank, and the notes are locked up in the vaults of the treasury.

This comparison of the operation of the two systems upon the currency shows very little to the advantage of the exchequer over the sub-treasury. Neither adds anything to the amount of circulation. Indeed, this is one of the great merits of his plan, claimed by the gentleman from Massachusetts, both in his report and in his speech. In the former, it is put quite as metaphorically as the subject will bear: "For every paper eagle on the wing, you have a gold eagle in hand."

How, then, is that bill to improve the currency, and remedy existing evils? If individuals make deposites, and the Government creditors receive certificates, you will have in circulation twenty millions of Government paper in lieu of twenty millions of coin in deposite. But, in the contingency that no private deposites be made, and your creditors prefer payment of their debts in specie to taking your notes, this plan will have no effect upon the currency, except to withdraw from general circulation gold and silver for Government use; and its identity in this respect with the sub-treasury cannot be questioned.

But suppose the twenty millions of Government paper in circulation: I am not disposed, in the siightest degree, to undervalue the advantages and conveniences of such a currency to the treasury and to commerce; but I doubt exceedingly whether Government will find in these advantages a compensation for the hazard of satekeeping this amount of pin, and the risk of this complex machine not working perfectly and promptly in all its parts and at every point. This most delicate operation of producing and reproducing this vast amount of Government money; of having at all times the constituent coin ready for the appearance of its representative paper, is necessarily confided to a great number of agents, ignorance or infidelity in any one of whom mars the whole system, and your treasury feels the shock in all its departments. The various parts of this complicated machine, although at great distances from each other, are so geared and coupled together, that a failure anywhere will disturb, if it do not destroy, the motion of the whole. It is one vast chain drawn over the whole length and breadth of the land, and the severance of any one link, "tenth or ten thousandth, breaks the chain alike." Imagine one of these Government

H. of Reps

certificates, whether for a private deposite or a public debt, presented and protested for non-payment: I care not what may be the cause-ignorance, inadvertence, or inability; universal panic will be the immediate consequence; and as fast as the mails can carry them, all other outstanding certificates, fellows of the dishonored one, having lost their credit, would find their way to the places of redemption. Thus would end your national paper

currency.

But, Mr. Speaker, if the Government be willing to assume the responsibility to which I have referred, will individuals find their account in making deposites? I can imagine no inducement to do so, except at points where commercial balances accumulate. A certificate, redeemable at the place where these balances are to be adjusted, would certainly be at a premium at the debtor point. Not so in any other case. A certificate, the specie to pay which is deposited in Cincinnati, will pay a debt in New York only at a discount equal to the expense of transporting the specie from Cincinnati to New York.

But, sir, if individuals should be inclined to make these deposites, will the several States permit your agencies to receive them? If not, this vaunted national paper currency, which is to achieve such wonders, is at once reduced one-half, or in the proportion of the ten millions allotted to the prohibiting States.

Since the attempt of certain politicians to control the Bank of the United States, in the person of Jeremiah Mason, this question of the currency has entered into all the arrangements and conflicts of party, and I fear there is no reason to doubt it will continue to do so.

Much is said in this report, and more elsewhere, of the evils inseparable from the expansibility of a paper currency. I do not intend to enter into that question. If it be an evil, this power of the States over your agencies will perpetuate it, and make the expansion and contraction of your nationall paper currency as certain-almost as regularas the rising and falling of the tides. When the friends of this national exchequer have the ascendancy in the State Legislatures, your agencies will be permitted to receive private deposites and give certificates, and your paper currency expands. When power shall have changed hands-and on this very question, too; for it will be a perpetual and prolific source of party strife-prohibition will be enforced, and your paper currency contracts. It vacillates with the vacillations of party. The currency-which the interests of Government and people alike require shall be stable, and removed as far as possible from the revolutions and vicissitudes from which no human affairs are entirely exempt is thus, by the inherent defect of its original formation, by the very law and condition of its existence, fastened to and made to follow the mutations of the most fickle and fluctuating of those affairs-the ever-varying party politics of the day.

Mr. Speaker, passing from this view of the subject, let me call your attention to the 12th section of this bill, which recognises the authority of the States to prohibit, by law, your agencies receiving private deposites of gold and silver coins, and giving certificates therefor. It is not my intention to follow the gentleman from Kentucky in his objections drawn from the principles of the Constitution. I shall illustrate my opposition from principles asserted and arguments contained in the report, and from other provisions of the bill. The project of an exchequer, recommended by the President, contains a provision similar to this. The remarks, therefore, I feel called upon to make upon this part of the subject, are equally applicable to both.

A principal advantage of the plan insisted upon by the committee in their report, is, that "it provides and secures a national paper currency." One of the modes indicated of providing this currency, is, conferring upon the exchequer and its agencies authority to receive, on private deposite, gold and silver coin and bullion, the property of individuals. Of course, the committee thinks it,within the constitutional competency of Congress to adopt this mode--to confer this authority; and that a law for that purpose is in accordance with the Constitution of the United Sta, and, therefore, the supreme law of the land, anything in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding. And yet the committee, in the same breath, by this 12th section, recommend that we reverse this order of precedency, and make an unconstitutional S