Herald of the times. [volume] (Newport, R.I.) 1830-1846, 1832-10-18

dent, therefore, which, if its authority
were Admitted, ought to weigh in favor
OF the act before me-" Now, sir, since
ii Is known to the whole country, one
cannot but wonder how it should remain
unknown to the President, that Congress
did mol decide against bank in 1915
On ,he contrary, that very Congress
passe0 bill for creating bank by very
large ma critics: In one form, it is true,
the bill failed in'the House Of ofRepresen-
tativeS but the vote was reconsdered,
the bill recommitted, and finally passed
by ii vste of one hundred and hcenty 10
hniy-mne. There is, therefore, not on
ly no Slid ground, but not even any
plausible pretence, for the assertion that
Congress, in 1915, decided against the
bank. That very Congress passed a
bill to crate bank, and its decision,
therefore, is preciselytthe other way ,and
is difect practic al precedent in favor Of
the constitutional gower. What are we
to thiIk Of constitutional argument,
which deals in this way" with historical
facts! When the message declares, ,as it
does declare, that there is nothing in
piece6nt which ought to weigh in ia
vor of he power,it sets at nousht repeat
ed act, of Congress- affirming the power,
and it also states other acts which were,
in fact and which are well sknown to
have been directly the reverse, of what
the message represents them. There is
not, sil, the slightest reason to think that
any Senate, or any House Of Represen-
tative., ever assembled under the con-
sttulion, contained a majority that doubt
cd the constitutional existence of the
power of Congress to establish bank
Whenever the question has arisen,F and
has been decided, it has been always
decided one way. The legislative pre-
cedonts all asset and maintain the pow
er, and these Legislative precedents have
been the law Of the land for almost forty
years. They settle the construction o!
| the constitution, and Sanction the eXcr-
else Of the power in question so far as
these ends can ever be accomplished. by
an, Legislative prccedcnts Whatever
| Bu the President does not admit the au.
| thdity ofprccedent. Sir, | have always
found, that those who habitually deny
mest vehcmently the general force oil
/ precedent, and assert most strongly the
supremacy Of private opinion, and yet, OF
allmen, most tenacious of that very au-
thuity of precedent whenever it hap
pets to be in their favor. beg leave tc
ask, sir, upon what ground, except tha
of precedent, and precedent atone, the
Presidents friends have placed his pow
; er of remopai from office? No such pow
;. err is given by the constitution, in terms
nOr any where intimated throughout the
whole of it; no paragraph or clause o
that instrument recognize such power
To say the least, it is as questionable
and has been as often questioned, as th'
power of Congress to create bank; and
enlig ghtened by what has passed unde
our own observation, we now see tha
it is, OF all powers, the most capable G
hagrant abuse. Now, sir, ask again
what becomes Of this power, it the au
thority of precedent be taken away?
has all along been denied to exist, it
no where found in the constitution, an
I its recent exercise, or, to call things b.
their right names, its recent abuse has
I more than any other single cause, ren
dered good men either cool in their a
iections toward the government OF the
| country, or doubtful of its long contin,
ance. Yet this power has precedent, IAN
= the President exercises il. We know
sir, that without the aid of that preceden
his acts could never have received th
q sanction of this body, even at tin
4 when his voice was somewhat more pc
. tential here than it now is, or, as | trus
@ ever again will be.
Does the President, then, reject I'll
authority of all precedent, except what
], suitable to his own purposes to use! Ar
does he use, without stint or measure, q
5, precedents which may augment his o~
e power, or crafty his wishes! But
the President thinks lightly of the a
J. thority OF Congress, in construlng II
n constitution, he thinks still more light
y of the authority ofthe Supreme Court,
&c lie asserts right of individual Jud
Is ment, on constitutional questions, whi
10 is totally Inconsistent with any prop
,e administration or the Government,
D. any regular execution of the laws. ,
J. cial disorder, entire uncertainty IN Z
f, gard to individual rights and lndlvldu
y, duties, the cessation of legal author't
o. confusion, the dissolution of free Go
er ernment-all these are the lnevitab
is consequences of the principles adopt,
r by the message, whenever they shall
tn carried to their full extent. Hitherto
lie has been thought, that the final dec's'
It, of constitutional questions belonged
is the supreme Judicial tribunal. The
ly ry nature OF free Government,it 1T has be
ne supposed, enjoins this: and our Constl'