Herald of the times. [volume] (Newport, R.I.) 1830-1846, 1832-10-18
MIR. WEBsTER's SPEECH,
In the Senate ofthe United States, on the Pre-
sident's Veto Of the Bank Bill, July llh
1892.


sidents Veto Of the Bank Bill, July llM,
1892.
(CoNTIN NUED.1
| / now proceed, sir, to few remarks s.
upon the Presidents constitutional OBJ
jections to the bank; and | cannot for
bear to say, in regard to them, that he
appears to me to have assumed very eX-
trao' 'dinary grounds of reasoning. lie
denies that the consitutionality Of the
bank is a settled question. If it be not,
will it ever become so, or what disputed
question can be settled' have already
observed, that for thirty-six years out of
the iorty-three, during which the Gov
enment has been in being, a bank has
existed, such us is now proposed to be
continued.
| As early as 1901, after great deliber-
alton, the first Bank Charter was passed
by Congress and approved by President
Washington. 1t established an insttu-
ton, resembling, in all things now objec,
ted to, the present bank. That bank
like this, could take lands in paynents of
its debts; that charter like the present
gave the States no power Of taxation; it
allowed foreigners to hold stock, it re-
strained Congress from creating other
banks. 1t gave also, exclusive privi.
cording to the doctrines of the message,
as Objectionable as that now existing -
:. That bank continued twenty years. In
/ 1916, the present institution was cstab-
lshed, and has been ever since in full
operation. Now, sir, the question of the
power Of Congress to create such insti-
tutions, has been contested in every man
ner known to our Constitution and Laws
The forms Of the government furnish no
new mode, in which to try this question.
1t has been discussed over and over a
} gain, in Congress; it has been argued
and solemnly adjudged in the Supreme
Court-every President, except the pre-
: sent, has considered it a settled question
many Of the State Legislatures have in.
structed their Senators to vote for the
bank; the tribunals Of the States, in eve
ry instance, have supported its constitu-
tionality; and, beyo ond all Goubt and dis
pute, the general public opinion of the
country, has at all times given, and does
tion to the exercise of this power, as be-
ing constitutional power. There has
been no opinion questioning the power
expressed or intimated, at any time, by
either House of Congress, by any Pre-.
sident, or by any respectable judicial tri
|, bunal. Now, sir, if this practice Of neal
j forty years, if these repeated exertions o
the rower if this solemn ad djudication o
the Supreme Court, with the concur
: renee and appreciation of public opinion
do not settle the question, how is any
u 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 bolt
and gross fallacy, or else it is an asser
: ton without proofs, and against knowI
> facts. The message admits, that il
J, 1871, Congress decided in favor of I
bank; but It adds that another Congress
, in 1911, decided against it. Now, if i
i be meant that in 1911, Congress deci
o ded against the bank on Constitutional
j. grounds, then the assertion is wholly in
, correct, and against notorious facts. ]
n is perfectly well known, that many mem
'r bers, in both Houses, voted against tn
/ bank, in 1911, who had no doubt at a.
Is of the constitutional power of Congress
l. They were entirely governed by othe
Z reasons given ut the time. appeal, s''
IN to the honorable member from Mary
as land, (Gen. Smith, who was then
u, member of the Senate, and voted again:
III the bank, whether he, and others, VIII
D. were on the same side, did not give thos
h' votes on other well known grounds, an
'e not at all on the constitutional ground.
" General Smith here rose and salt
aS that he voted against the bank in l8l
but not at all on constitutional ground
u, and had no doubt such was the caus
VI with other members
h. We all know, sir, Continued MIR Wei
mr. ster,) the facts to be as the gentlema
n. from Maryland has stated it. Ever
!, man who recollects, or who has read Il
"a political occurrences Of that day, know
of it. Therefore, if the message intends
say that in 1911, Congress denied Il
existence Of any such constitutional poi
nth er, the declaration is unwarranted-ls a
er- together at variance with the fact
on the other hand, it only intends to sa
raj that Congress decided against the pr
en- position then before it, on some 9th
of grounds, then il alleges that which
ci- nothing at all to the purpose. The a
,e- gumcnt, then, either assumes for tru
ms that Which is not true, or else, the who
is- statement is mmaterial and futile. B,
ce whatever value others may attach TO Il
ar argument, the message thinks so high
re- of il. that il proceeds to repeat il. 90