Staunton spectator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 182?-183?, 1832-08-10
SPEECH OF MR.. CLAY, OF KEN
lucky, IN THE SENATE.
On the Presidents peto on the Bank Bill
july u, 1892

Mr.. CLAY said he had some observation,
to submit on this question, which he would
not trespass on the Senate in Offering, but
that it had some command ofleisure in con
sequence OF the Conference which had been
agreed upon in respect TO the Tariff
A bill to re- charter the Bank had recent
ly passed Congress, after much deliberation.
In this'body, we know that there are men,
bers enough, who entertain no constitution
al scruples, 10 make, with the vote by which
the bill was passed, majority oftwo thirds
In the House of Representatives also, it is be-
lieved, there is like majority in favor OF
the bill. Notwithstanding this state ofthings,
the President has rejected the bill, and trans
united to the Senate an elaborate message
communicating al large his objections. The
Constitution requires that we should recon
slider the bill, and that tho question of its
passage, the Presidents objections notwith-
standing, shall be taken by Ayes and Noes.
Respect to him, as well as the injunctions
OF the Constitution, require that we should
deliberately examine his reasons and recon-
slider the question.
The Veto is an extraordinary power,
which, though tolerated by the Constitution
was not expected, by the Convention, to DO
used in ordinary cases. 1t was designed for
instances of precipItate Legislation, in I'M
guarded moments. Thus restricted, and
it had been thus restricted, by all former
Presidents, it might not be mischievous
During MIR. Madison's Administration of
eight years, there had occurred but two or
three cases of its exercise. During the last
Administration, do not now recolect that
it was once. In period little upwards of
three years, the present Chief Magistrate
has employed the Veto four times Wenow
haar frannaptlu in ha II
measures, through Congress, the statement
that the President will veto them, urged as
an objection to their passage.
The Veto is hardly reconcileable with the
genius of representative Government 1t
is totally irreconcileable with it, lift is TO be
frequently employed in respect 10 the expe-
dieney of measures, as well as their consti-
tionality. Ii is feature ofour Government
borrowed from prerogatiye OF the British
King. And it is remarkable that in Eng
land il has grown obsolete, not having been
used for upwards of a century. At the COM
mencement of the French Revolution, in
discussing the principles of their Constitu-
ton in the National Convention, the Veto
held conspicuous figure. The gay laugh
ing population of Paris bestowed on the
King the appelation of Monsieur Veto, and,
on the Queen, that of Madame Veto The
Convention finally decreed, that if measure
rejected by the King, should obtain the Sane
tion oftwo conCurring Legislatures, il should
be law, Notwithstanding the Veto. In the
Constitution of Kentucky, and perhaps in
some other of the State Constitutions, it is
provided, that if after the rejection of a bill
by the Governor, it shall be passed by a
majority Of all the members elected TO both
Houses, it shall become law, notwithstand-
Al1T -, IL.
dinate branch of the Government, the Chief
Magistrate has great weight. If, after re-
spectful consideration of his objections ure-
ed against bill, majority of all the mem
bers elected to the Legislature shall still pass
it, notwithstanding his official influence and
the force of his reasons, ought il not TO be-
come law? Ought the opinion ofone man
to override that of Legislative body twice
deliberately expressed?
Ii cannot be imagined that the Conven-
tion contemplated the application Of the We
to to q question which has been so long, SO
often, and SO thoroughly scrutinized, as that
of the Bank of the United States, by every
department of the Government, in almost
every stage Of its existence, and by the Peo-
pie, and by tho State Legislatures. Of
all the cOntroverted questions, which have
sprung up under our Government, not one
has been so fully investigated as that of its
power to establish bank of the U. States S.
More than seventeen years ago, in Janua-
ry 1915, Mr. M adiSon then said, in mess
age to the Senate Of the U. States: Waiv-
"ing the question of the constitutional au-
"thority ofthe Legislature to establish an in
"corporated Bank, as being precEuded, in my
Judgment, by repeated recognitions, under
Carried circumstances Of the Ualidity of such
"dn i1,stitution, in acts otthe Legislative, Err
"cutive, and judicial branches of the GoUern-
"raent, accompaniedby indications, in differ
cent modes, Of concurrence Of the general
"iciH ofthe Nation" Mr. Madison, him
self opposed TO the first Bank of the United
States, yielded his own convictions to those
of the Nation, and all the departments of the
Government thus often expressed Suisse
quent to this true, but strong statement of
the case, the present Bank of the United
States was established, and numerous other
acts, Of all the Departments of the Govern
ment, maniiesling their settled sense of the
power, have been added to those which ex-
listed prior 10 the date of Mr.. Madison's
Message.
No question has been more generally dis
cussed, within the last two years, by the
People at large, and in State Legislatures,
than that of the Bank And this considera-
lion of has been prompted by the Presi-
dent himself In his first Message 10 Con-
gress, Gin December, 1929 he brought the
subject TO the view Of that body and The Ma
lion, and expressly declared, that il could
not, for the interests ofall concerned, be "too |
soon" settled In each of his subsequent
annual Messages, in 1880 and 1881, he again
invited the attention Of Congress TO the sub