American stockholders. So far as there is dependence, or influence, either way, it is to the disadvantage of the foreign stockholder. He has parted with the control over his own property, instead of exercising control over the property or over the actions of others. And, Sir, let it now be added, in further answer to this whole class of objections, that experience has abundantly confuted them all. This Government has existed forty-three years, and has maintained, in full being and operation, a Bank, such as is now proposed to be renewed, for thirty-six years out of the forty-three. We have never for a moment had a Bank not subject to every one of these objections. Always, foreigners might be stockholders; always, foreign stock has been exempt from State taxation, as much as at present; always, the same power and privileges; always, all that which is now called a "monopoly," a "gratuity," a "present," has been possessed by the Bank. And yet there has been found no danger to liberty, no introduction of foreign influence, and no accumulation of irresponsible power in a few hands. I cannot but hope, therefore, that the people of the United States will not now yield up their judgment to those notions, which would reverse all our best experience, and persuade us to discontinue a useful institution, from the influence of vague and unfounded declamation against its danger to the public liberties. Our liberties, indeed, must stand upon very frail foundations, if the Government cannot, without endangering them, avail itself of those common facilities, in the collection of its revenues, and the management of its finances, which all other Governments, in commercial countries, find useful and necessary.

In order to justify its alarm for the security of our independence, the message supposes a case. It supposes that the Bank should pass principally into the hands of the subjects of a foreign country, and that we should be involved in war with that country, and then it exclaims, "What would be our condition?" Why, Sir, it is plain that all the advantages would be on our side. The Bank would still be our institution, subject to our own laws, and all its directors elected by ourselves; and our means would be enhanced, not by the confiscation and, plunder, but by the proper use of the foreign capital in our hands. And, Sir, it is singular enough, that this very state of war, from which this argument against a Bank is drawn, is the very thing which, more than all others, convinced the country and the Government of the necessity of a National Bank. So much was the want of such an institution felt, in the late war, that the subject engaged the attention of Congress, constantly, from the declaration of that war down to the time when the existing Bank was actually established; so that, in this respect, as well as in others, the argument of the message is directly opposed to the whole experience of the Gov

ernment, and to the general and long-settled convictions of the country.

I now proceed, Sir, to a few remarks upon the President's Constitutional objections to the Bank; and I cannot forbear to say, in regard to them, that he appears to me to have assumed very extraordinary grounds of reasoning. He denies that the Constitutionality of the Bank is a settled question. If it be not, will it ever become so, or what disputed question ever can be settled? I have already observed, that for thirty-six years, out of the fortythree, during which the Government has been in being, a BANK has existed, such as is now proposed to be continued.

As early as 1791, after great deliberation, the first Bank charter was passed by Congress, and approved by President Washington. It established an institution, resembling, in all things now objected to, the present Bank. That Bank, like this, could take lands in payment of its debts; that charter, like the present, gave the States no power of taxation; it allowed foreigners to hold stock; it restrained Congress from creating other Banks. It gave also exclusive privileges, and in all particulars it was, according to the doctrine of the message, as objectionable as that now existing. That Bank continued twenty years. In 1816, the present institution was established, and has been, ever since, in full operation. Now, Sir, the question of the power of Congress to create such institutions, has been contested in every manner known to our Constitution and laws. The forms of the Government furnish no new mode, in which to try this question. It has been discussed over and over again, in Congress; it has been argued and solemnly adjudged in the Supreme Court; every President, except the present, has considered it a settled question; many of the State Legislatures have instructed their Senators to vote for the Bank; the tribunals of the States, in every instance, have supported its Constitutionality; and, beyond all doubt and dispute, the general public opinion of the country has at all times given, and does now give, its full sanction and approbation to the exercise of this power, as being a Constitutional power. There has been no opinion, questioning the power, expressed or intimated, at any time, by either House of Congress, by any President, or by any respectable judicial tribunal. Now, Sir, if this practice of near forty years; if these repeated exercises of the power; if this solemn adjudication of the Supreme Court, with the concurrence and approbation of public opinion,-do not settle the question, how is any question ever to be settled, about which any one may choose to raise a doubt? The argument of the message, upon the Congressional precedents, is either a bold and gross fallacy, or else it is an assertion without proofs, and against known facts. The message admits, that, in 1791, Congress decided in favor of a

Bank; but it adds that another Congress, in 1811, decided against it. Now, if it be meant that, in 1811, Congress decided against the Bank on Constitutional ground, then the assertion is wholly incorrect, and against notorious fact. It is perfectly well known, that many members, in both Houses, voted against the Bank, in 1811, who had no doubt at all of the Constitutional power of Congress. They were entirely governed by other reasons given at the time. I appeal, Sir, to the honorable member from Maryland (Gen. Smith), who was then a member of the Senate, and voted against the Bank, whether he, and others, who were on the same side, did not give those votes on other well-known grounds, and not at all on the Constitutional ground?

[Gen. Smith here rose, and said, that he voted against the Bank in 1811, but not at all on Constitutional grounds, and had no doubt such was the case with other members.]

We all know, Sir (continued Mr. Webster), the fact to be as the gentleman from Maryland has stated it. Every man who recollects, or who has read, the political occurrences of that day, knows it. Therefore, if the message intends to say that, in 1811, Congress denied the existence of any such Constitutional power, the declaration is unwarranted-is altogether at variance with the facts. If, on the other hand, it only intends to say, that Congress decided against the proposition then before it, on some other grounds, then it alleges that which is nothing at all to the purpose. The argument, then, either assumes for truth that which is not true, or else the whole statement is immaterial and futile. But whatever value others may attach to this argument, the message thinks so highly of it, that it proceeds to repeat it. "One Congress," it says, "in 1815, decided against a Bank; another, in 1816, decided in its favor. There is nothing in precedent, therefore, which, if its authority were admitted, ought to weigh in favor of the act before me." Now, Sir, since it is known to the whole country, one cannot but wonder how it should remain unknown to the President, that Congress did not decide against a Bank in 1815. On the contrary, that very Congress passed a bill for erecting a Bank, by very large majorities. In one form, it is true, the bill failed in the House of Representatives; but the vote was reconsidered, the bill recommitted, and finally passed by a vote of one hundred and twenty to thirty-nine. There is, therefore, not only no solid ground, but not even any plausible pretence, for the assertion that Congress, in 1815, decided against the Bank. That very Congress passed a bill to create a Bank, and its decision, therefore, is precisely the other way, and is a direct practical precedent in favor of the Constitutional power. What are we to think of a Constitutional argument which deals, in this way, with his

torical facts? When the message declares, as it does declare, that there is nothing in precedent which ought to weigh in favor of the power, it sets at nought repeated acts of Congress affirming the power, and it also states other acts, which were in fact, and which are well known to have been, directly the reverse of what the message represents them. There is not, Sir, the slightest reason to think that any Senate or any House of Representatives, ever assembled under the Constitution, contained a majority that doubted the Constitutional existence of the power of Congress to establish a Bank. Whenever the question has arisen, and has been decided, it has been always decided one way. The legislative precedents all assert and maintain the power; and these legislative precedents have been the law of the land for almost forty years. They settle the construction of the Constitution, and sanction the exercise of the power in question so far as these ends can ever be accomplished by any legislative precedents whatever.

But the President does not admit the authority of precedent. Sir, I have always found, that those who habitually deny most vehemently the general force of precedent, and assert most strongly the supremacy of private opinion, are yet, of all men, most tenacious of that very authority of precedent, whenever it happens to be in their favor. I beg leave to ask, Sir, upon what ground, except that of precedent, and precedent alone, the President's friends have placed his power of removal from office. No such power is given by the Constitution, in terms, nor any where intimated, throughout the whole of it; no paragraph or clause of that instrument recognizes such a power. To say the least, it is as questionable, and has been as often questioned, as the power of Congress to create a Bank; and, enlightened by what has passed under our own observation, we now see that it is of all powers the most capable of flagrant abuse. Now, Sir, I ask again, What becomes of this power, if the authority of precedent be taken away? It has all along been denied to exist; it is no where found in the Constitution; and its recent exercise, or to call things by their right names-its recent abuse, has, more than any other single cause, rendered good men either cool in their affections toward the Government of their country, or doubtful of its long continuance. Yet this power has precedent, and the President exercises it. We know, Sir, that, without the aid of that precedent, his acts could never have received the sanction of this body, even at a time when his voice was somewhat more potential here than it now is, or, as I trust, ever again will be. Does the President, then, reject the authority of all precedent except what it is suitable to his own purposes to use? And does he use, without stint or measure, all precedents which may augment his own power, or gratify his own wishes?

But, if the President thinks lightly of the authority of Congress, in construing the Constitution, he thinks still more lightly of the authority of the Supreme Court. He asserts a right of individual judgment, on Constitutional questions, which is totally inconsistent with any proper administration of the Government, or any regular execution of the laws. Social disorder, entire uncertainty in regard to individual rights and individual duties, the cessation of legal authority, confusion, the dissolution of free government!— all these are the inevitable consequences of the principles adopted by the message, whenever they shall be carried to their full extent. Hitherto, it has been thought that the final decision of Constitutional questions belonged to the supreme judicial tribunal. The very nature of free government, it has been supposed, enjoins this; and our Constitution, moreover, has been understood so to provide, clearly and expressly. It is true, that each branch of the Legislature has an undoubted right, in the exercise of its functions, to consider the Constitutionality of a law proposed to be passed. This is naturally a part of its duty; and neither branch can be compelled to pass any law, or do any other act, which it deems to be beyond the reach of its Constitutional power. The President has the same right, when a bill is presented for his approval; for he is, doubtless, bound to consider, in all cases, whether such bill be compatible with the Constitution, and whether he can approve it consistently with his oath of office. But when a law has been passed by Congress, and approved by the President, it is now no longer in the power, either of the same President, or his successors, to say whether the law is Constitutional or not. He is not at liberty to disregard it; he is not at liberty to feel or to affect "Constitutional scruples," and to sit in judgment himself on the validity of a statute of the Government, and to nullify it, if he so chooses. After a law has passed through all the requisite forms; after it has received the requisite legislative sanction and the executive approval, the question of its Constitutionality then becomes a judicial question, and a judicial question alone. In the courts that question may be raised, argued, and adjudged; it can be adjudged no where else.

The President is as much bound by the law as any private citizen, and can no more contest its validity than any private citizen. He may refuse to obey the law, and so may a private citizen; but both do it at their own peril, and neither of them can settle the question of its validity. The President may say a law is unconstitutional, but he is not the judge. Who is to decide that question? The judiciary, alone, possess this unquestionable and hitherto unquestioned right. The judiciary is the Constitutional tribunal of appeal, for the citizens, against both Congress and the Executive, in regard to the Constitutionality of laws. It has this