SPEECH

UPON THE GOVERNOR'S MESSAGE.

DELIVERED IN THE SENATE OF NEW YORK, January 11th, 1840.

[This speech was made upon resolutions to refer to the proper Committees the various subjects presented for consideration by the second annual Message of Governor Seward. The occasion of reference is usually improved to settle political scores between the opposition and the administration, at least as far as relates to subjects called up by the message to be referred, and the speech before us is one following in that line of precedents; but it will be seen that it followed upon ample invitation or provocation on the part of the Governor. It should however be noted perhaps, that the change of tone commented on, between the first and second messages, might have been fairly attributable to the pecuniary revulsion which took place intermediate the two, if Governor Seward had chosen to present that natural solution, instead of striving out of the circumstances of the times to make a point against his political opponents.]

I am not prepared, Mr. President, to enter into a full discussion of the merits and demerits of the message; nor do I propose to do so. Its extreme length would preclude such an examination as it deserves, within a reasonable time. His Excellency has informed us that the value of fame is to be estimated by the length of time through which it endures and the space it occupies; and he seems to suppose that the value of an executive message should be estimated upon the same principle-its length.

I shall not now ask the indulgence of the Senate until I can separate the few grains of wheat it contains from the mountain of chaff, but will, for the present, content myself with calling the attention of the Senate and the people to a few of its gross inconsistencies of position, and palpable misstatements

of facts. I regret that I feel bound to do So, lest my remarks may be deemed personally disrespectful or unkind to the Executive, which I will disavow in advance, and add, that the intercourse between the Governor and myself has been char. acterized on the part of his Excellency by fair and gentlemanly demeanor. It is officially, and not personally, that I desire to speak. I would moreover say that I do not hold it fair to criticise illiberally the acts of a high public functionary, while acting in the discharge of the duty imposed on him by the constitution and laws, so long as he contents himself with the discharge of his duties. He is the officer of the whole people, and in executing the duties of his office his acts are entitled to the most charitable and liberal construction. But when he descends from his high position to play the political partisan; becomes the assailant of his opponents, and under the imposing sanction of his official name, seeks to inculcate his favorite dogmas, he is so far the legitimate subject of criticism, and has no right to protect himself under the folds of his official mantle: he is then shorn of his strength, and is weak like other men.

The Constitution of this State declares that the Governor "shall communicate by message to the Legislature at every session, the condition of the State, and recommend such matters as he shall deem expedient." Under this clause of the Constitution, that distinguished dignitary has communicated by message to the Legislature at this session, not only the condition of the State, but he pretends to give the positions of political parties, and the position of the Senate and Assembly of 1838 upon engrossed bills. He has turned legislative historian-has entered the legislative burial-field and attempted to disinter the ashes of mouldering records, and incorporate their history in his message, not for the purpose of showing the condition of the State or recommending legislative action, but for no higher or worthier motive (for it could have no other) than showing which political party had amended a bill in a particular manner, and which had not; a matter clearly so irrelevant and impertinent that if a lawyer had, with no better excuse, inserted it in a pleading, it would have been stricken out on motion. In his message now under consideration, his Excellency says:

"In 1838, the late Executive recommended a more speedy enlargement of the Erie Canal. It was obvious from the condition of the finances of the State at that time, that this could not be effected without contracting a debt. The Assembly responded to this recommendation by passing a bill directing the Commissioners of the Canal Fund to borrow, on the credit of the State, one million of dollars for that object. The Senate amended the bill so as to authorize the borrowing of four millions of dollars instead of one million. In this shape the bill became a law. This law required the Commissioners to put under contract, with as little delay as possible, such portions of the work as were mentioned in their report of that year, and such other portions as, in the opinion of the Canal Board, would best secure the completion of the entire enlargement with double locks on the whole line."

The individual who undertakes the important task of historian, should possess not only fidelity, but information. And whoever seeks to give his fellow men a place upon the historic page, and above all in an executive message, is guilty of a high moral wrong if he does them injustice. Ignorance of facts officially obtruded, is as inexcusable as design, and he who invokes legislative history against his political opponents, is as much bound to learn the truth as he is to speak it after he has learned it. If it was material for the Executive to trace the history of the bill of 1838 for the more speedy enlargement of the Erie Canal, from Assembly to Senate-from Senate again to Assembly, to note where it was amended, and by which body; it was at least equally material that such relation should be true. Sir, the people at large have no interest in knowing from the Governor, in which branch a particular bill was amended. If that office is to be performed, it should be left to retailers in party politics. The allusion to the subject by his Excellency was extremely gratuitous under any circumstances, and what is much worse, his statement is incorrect. I aver that the bill in question passed in the Assembly, and came from the Assembly to the Senate, providing for the borrowing of four millions of dollars instead of one, as stated by his Excellency; that the bill as it passed the Assembly, the documents on file and the reports of the proceedings, will bear me out in the statement, and show him to be mistaken, and I challenge contradiction.

Since his Excellency has called the attention of the Legislature and of the People to the session of 1838, and has attempted to run what I deem an invidious parallel between a federal Assembly and a democratic Senate, for the purpose of showing the extreme prudence and economy of the former, and the soundness of their views, it might not be amiss to mention another matter which has intimate connection with the passage of the bill in question, which had birth at about the same time, and of which a distinguished individual, now bearing the highest honor of the Empire State, was the reputed, and as report said, the acknowledged father.

It will be recollected, that in April of the session of 1838, the memorable bank suspension was drawing to a close; and that the banks were required to resume specie payments within a few days thereafter, or forfeit their charters. The banks had indicated their ability and readiness to resume, but a certain institution in a neighboring State of which the Governor and his political friends had probably heard, had interposed its authority, and ordained that the banks should not resume; or that, if they did resume, they should again suspend. It was known to have the disposition, and believed to have the power, to prevent a successful resumption. The sound business men of the State, and particularly of the city of New York, justly regarding an irredeemable currency as the greatest possible commercial evil, applied to the then executive, Governor Marcy, to interpose the aid of the State in behalf of the institutions which were willing to return to a performance of their obligations, and repudiate the suspension policy. The relief suggested by the most eminent financiers of the State, was the loaning of State stocks, which had been and were to be created for the purposes of public improvements, in case it should become necessary, to the banks. Governor Marcy, in view of the extraordinary crisis, and to avert an impending and dreadful calamity, recommended that the State should "stand forth in its strength, and by use of its credit and the sanction of its name, shield its institutions and its citizens from harm." In these views a majority of the Senate concurred. But how was it with the whig Assembly, whose acts even of omission are thought worthy of a place in the executive message? Sir, they passed a bill authorizing a virtual continuance of the suspen

sion, by permitting the banks to issue post notes. So tenacious were they of this policy, that they even refused to recede from it upon a committee of conference. A policy which is now viewed with universal execration and scorn; a policy which has brought the great federal regulator to her beam's end, and exposed in letters of living light her sorceries and corruptions; a policy evidently dictated by the bank itself, and attempted to be carried out by its supporter and apologists here; a policy more profligate, more deceptive, and less justifiable, than any other which could be devised, which no one dare now vindicate, and which the Governor himself pronounces a fraud upon the community.

But I have already assumed that his excellency Governor Seward was at that time an advocate of the post-note policy, and as I have permitted the late Executive to be heard in his own language upon the subject of this crisis, I ought, perhaps, in justice, to extend the same liberality to the present one, and to that end, I cite the report of a select committee of the Assembly of 1838, upon governor Marcy's special message, which was understood to have been from the pen of his excellency Governor Seward, and was introduced by a distinguished member of the whig Assembly, denominated at the time, by high authority, a veteran legislator." After enumerating some of the advantages which had already resulted from whig legislation, the report proceeds:

"It appeared also to the Assembly, as a proper and necessary measure of State legislation, in aid of the banks, in the contemplated resumption, that they should have power TO ISSUE POST NOTES. The manifest advantages of this power are these:

1st. It will enable the banks to issue notes payable at a distant day, and bearing interest, to those persons who are satisfied with their solvency, and desire such notes as a temporary investment, and thereby, with the consent of the creditors, and for a proper equivalent, to postpone a part of their demands until a more favorable season. 2d. It will enable the banks to purchase on credit, specie and convertible paper and public stocks, in many instances more desirable than specie itself."

Such, sir, were the positions respectively of the Senate and the Assembly of 1838, and such, it may be added, of the respective distinguished individuals—the late and the present executives.