The Massachusetts spy. [volume] (Worcester [Mass.]) 1831-1858, 1832-10-10


eide, and which they did decide, when the one
passed, and the other approved the act And he
has now no more authority to pronounce his luog-
ment on that act than any other individual in socie-
ty. 1t is not his province TO decide on the consul
nationality Of statutes which Congress has passed.
and his predecessors approved. -,
There is another sentiment in tins part Oh 'he
message, which we should hardly have expect
ed 20 find in paper which is Supposed whoe'-
er may have drawn it up. TO have Passed e,, c
the review of professional characters 'he
message declares that this limitation 10 cieate
no other Bank is unconstitutional, because, ai
though CONGRESS may use the discretion vested
in them ssthat thew nav not limit the dscre-
ton of their successors This reason is almost
too superficial to require an answer. Every
one at all accustomed to the consideration of
such subjects, knows that Congress can hInd
its successors TO the same extent that 1t can
bind itself; the power OF Congress is always
the same; the authority OF law always the
same 1t is true, we speak OF the twentieth
Congress, and the twenty hrst Congress, but
this Is only TO denote the period Of time. or 10
mark the successive organizations Of the House
of REPRESENTATIVES under the successive period
ical elections of its members. As polite body,
as the legislative power of the government,
Congress is always continuous, always identl-
cal. A particular Congress, as we speak of it,
for instance the present Congress, can no fur
ther restrain itself from doing what II may
chance TO do at the next session, than it can
restrain any succeeding Congress from doing
what it may choose. Any Congress may repesl
the act or law of its predecessor, il in its ma
ture itbe repeaable, just as it may repeal its
ewn ac.; and if law, or an act, be irrepeala
Bile in lis nature, it can 40 more be repealed by
subsequent Congress than by that which pass
ed it. All this is familiar to every body And
Congress, like every other legislature even
kAtrx shs,r, nN,.ra .fs
or contracts are irrepealable ever afterwards
The message, in a strain of argument which it
is difficult 10 tres. with ordinary respect, de.
.clares that this restriction on the power of
Congress, as 70 the establishment of other
banks, is palpable attempt to Bmend the Con.
stitution by al act eflegislation. The reason on
which this observation purports to be founded
is. that Congress, by the Constitution, is to
have exclusive legislation over the District of
Coumbia and when the bank charter declares
that Congress will create no new bank within
Ihe District, it annuls this power of exclusive
legislation must say that this reasoning hardly
rises high enough to entitle ii to passing no.
tice, Ii would be doing it too much credit to
call if plausible. No one needs to be informed
that exclusive power OF Legislation is not unlim-
tied power of Legislation and, if it we're, how
can that legislative power be unlimited that
cannot restrain ITSELF that cannot bind itself by
individual, that being is feliered and restrained
which is not capable of binding itself, by ordina-
ry obligation. Every legislature binds itself
whenever 1t makes grant, enters into 4 con-
tract, bestows an Office or does any other act or
thing, which is in its nature irrepealabie. And
this instead Of detractIng from its Legislative
power is one of the modes of exercising that
power. And the legislative power of Congress
over the District of Columbia would not be full
and LOTT ,.rrAs 4.
stipulation as the bank charter contains.
AS to the taxing power of the State, about which
the message says SO much, the proper avenue to all
1t says, is that the States possessed the po,cer to
tai ans instrument Of the Government efhe Unit.
ed States 1t was no part OF their power before
the Constitution, and they derive no such power
from any of its provisions 1t is no where given
. them. Could State tax the coin of the United
States at the mint Could State lay a stamp tax
on tie process OF the courts of the United States
and on custom-house papers Could it tax the
transportation Of the mail or the ships of war or
The ORDINANCES, or the munitions of war of the Unit
co states Tue reason that they cannot be tax
60, oy Sta'e' Is that they are means and nstru-
ments OF Inc Government Of the United States
tIbe establishment Of bank exempt from State
taxation takes away no exisGag ripht in a St,,a
1T leaves II all II ever possessed. but he com.
plant is, that the bank charter does not confer the
power OF taxation. This. certainly, though no,
new, ttor the same argument was urged here an.
pears to me to be a strange mode of asserting and
maintaining State rights. The power of taxation
is a sovereign power: and the President and those
who think with him, are of opinion, in given
case, that this sovereign right should be conferred
on the States By an act Of Congress There is II
mistake not, sir, little compliment to State
sovereignty, in this idea, there is of sound con-
stitutonal doctrine. Sovereign rights, held unde
the grant of an act of Congress present a propo
si.lon quite new in constitutional law
The President himself, even admits. that ar
Instrument nf 4 he i fad
such, to be taxed by the States vet he contends
for such power of taxing property connected
with this instrument, and essential TO its yer,
being, as places IFS whole existence in the Meas
ure of the States. 1t is not enough that Oh,
States may tax all the property of their own cit
lzens, whenever Invested, or however erploved
The complaint is, that the power of State taxa
ton does reach so tar as to take cognizanc
over persons out Of The State, and to tax Them
for franchise, lawfully exercised under th
authority of the United States. Sir, when d,
Abe power OF the States, or indeed of any Gov
eminent, go to such an extent as that Clear
'iy, never.
The taxing power Of all communities is neces
sarlly and justly limited TO the property of IL
own citizens, and 10 the property of others
having distinct and local existence, as prooer
~ within its jurisdiction it does not extent
TO rights and franchises rightly exercised nm
to persons beyond It's jurisdiction As the Con.
stltutlOH has left the taxing power of the State,
as the Bank Charter leaves il, Congress ha,
not undertaken either TO take away, or TO con
fer taxing power; nor to enlarge, or to RESTRAIN
1t: if 1t were to do either, hardly know which
of all would be least excusable.
i beg leave to repeat, Mr.. President, thai
what ! have now been considering, are IN,
Presidents objections not TO the policy or er
pediency, but TO the constutionaity of IN,
Bank; and not to the constitutionaiity of an,
neio, or proposed Bank, but of The Bank as !,
now is, and as it has long existed Iftbe Pres
ident had declined to approve this bill, because
he thought the original chatter unwisely grant
cd, and the Bank, in point Of policy and. ex ne.
diency, Objectionable or mischievous, and n
that view only had suggested the reasons now
urged by him, his argument, however incon
elusive, would have been ineligible, and not
IN lis whole frame and scope, inconsistent with
ali wei established first principles His reiec
ton OF the bill, in that case, would have been
no doubt, an extraordinary exercise of DOW
er; but it would have been, nevertheless
The exercise of power belonging to his of
&c, ana trusted by the constitution 10 his dis
erection. But when he puts forth an array
Of arguments, such as the message EMPLOYS
rot against the expediency of the Bank, bu,
against It's constitutional existence, he con.
rounds all distinctions mixes questions of poll.
ey and questions Of right together, and turns
oil constitutional restraints into mere matters
~ opinion AS far as its power extends, either
- us uitect efiects, or as precedent, the mes.
So se no. only unsetlles every thing which has
made L..