Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1834-01-25
Twenty-tiird Comgrcss.--Ist scs,.

Twenty-tiaird COmgrcss.--lstS css.
In SENATE.-.Monddy, january ID.
MIR CALHOUN'S SPEECH.-[CoNcLUDEpJ
But to return from this DEPRESSION. Though viii
dy stated, will take the liberty OF nding TO those
who support them this noo few plain que stions If
strong to abuse and corruption they conendf in con-
sequence OF this tendency, the Bank OF the United States
Notwithstanding its responsibility the Government and
our control over IT, what is to be expected from respon.
sbe League banks called by the Senator
KY, Mr. Clay,l over which we have no legal con-
troll IL our power Of renewing the charter of the Bank
oil the United Statesif our right 10 the charter by
scre Jdcids in OF msconduct-il the influence
the appointment OF five Government Directors gives us
and, finally, If the power which have Of appointing
committees 10 examine into its condition. sufficient
to hold the institution in check it, in spite of all these
has. nom the innate corruption OF such institutions been
guilty OF the enormous abuses and crimes charged against
H. what may we not expect from the associated banks the
fsvoes oil the Treasury the al of whose char
Ter the Government has no power, against which il can
issue no seTe Jdcias in whose direction it has
gio INDIVIDUAL, and into whose conduct Congress can an
point no committee TO look With these checks all with
drawn what will be the condition OF the public funds
u said Mr. Calhoun, stated in the nv remarks
that as broad the power which the Secretary had
assumed in relation to the deposites that there was por
ton OF the transaction of highly important characcr Ia
which he has not alluded, relaon TO which he
not even attempted justification. will now proceed TO
make good this assertion to the letter
There is a material difference between tpiihholiiup
money from going into the bank, and withdrawing after
It had been placed there. The former is authorized in the
sixteenth
Wc urecs as mas been frequently stated, that the pub
lie money shall be deposited in the bank unless otherwise
ordered by The Secretary OF the Treasury But neither
.ha ecuon nor any portion oil the the
bank nor in TRUTH any other act gives the Sc crearv
authority, OF HIMSELF to withdraw public money deposited
in the bank There is repeat material difference be-
tween 'chhod,ng public money from deposte and ,cih
drd,cng it, When paid into the place designated by law
as the deposie Of the public money! IL To the
oil the treasurer, and then in the Treasury of the nj
ted States where is placed under the Of tho
Constitution yNt, and from which, by an express prov
ne 'ansf I'm finD Ia
appropriation made by law. careful were the trainers
oil the act OF lSI6, TO leave nothing implication that
express authority given 10 the Secretary Of the Trea
sury' In me hfeeni section, TO transfer the deposes
from one place to another for the OF dsburse
meh's' put winch, by strange perversion, is
tempted to be so construed TO confer the Secretary
the power to withdraw the money from the depose and
to loan it TO favorte State banks. express myseii
too favorably, l should say; give, to his favori,es
without interest, with view sustain their credits
or enlarge their protsa power Only far beyond the
Secretary but which Congress itself could not exercise
without 6agrant breach Of the Constitution But i
said in answer 10 these views, that money paid in demo
sites into the bank directed by law in The Trea
lection II it be not in the Treasury, where is the
treasury! III IT be not money in the Treasury where
H the money annually reported TO be i" the treasury
annual report Of the Secretary said TO be now in ,s
treasury Are we 10 understand that of this mo.
ney i in TRUTH in the Treasury? that il is floating about
OF large subject 10 be disposed OTTO be given away al
the will OF the Executive, to avoritcs and pariizans So
1t would seem; for it appears by correspondence he
tween the Treasurer and the Cashier of the Bank
through the bank (he Secretary not eemne il worth
while to give the slightest information of the transaction
mater oil course that lie has drawn out two mil
lions and quarter of the public money, without appro
Prson and distributed at pleasure among his
But 1t attempted 10 vDdcae the conduct of the Sc
cre.ary OH me ground oil precedent l will stop {,
notice whether the cited in poin nor viii
avail myself OF the great and striking advantage that
might have on the question of this case stands
alone and distinct from all others There is none similar
to 1t IN magnitude and importance I waive all that;
place myself higher grounds stand ON the immoya
a o las audco
In delbeTave assembly, there no room-no nlace for
Pecedents 10 admit them would be make the viola
ton oil to-day the law and Constitution OF morrow and
to substitute in the place Of the written and sacred m
OF the people and the legislature the nracon OF bos,
charged with the execution Of the law. Such in nav ou
MON, is the relative force of law and constitution on one
side, as compared with precedens the other view
co III dinereht hgh not in reference TO the lazy con-
shtuoD but TO The conduct OF the officer am disposed
to give rather more weight TO the nues
uon relates 10 an excuse apology for officer in
oil nirscton III the inracou be trivial one ia A case
not calculated to excite attention, an officer might larv
excuse himself on the ground Of but in one
this, OF the utmost msgnuhe involving the hphos
ests and most important principles, where the attention n
the officer must be aroused careful examination
he cannot avail himself the plea of precedent 10 excns
his conduct 1t where false are to he
corrected aud not olloUed An officer ought TO be asham
ed IN such case 10 attempt TO vndicatc his conduct ON
charge o. violating law or constitution by pleading prece
dent The principle in this is obvious II The Sec
re'ays right TO Withdraw public money from tie Treasu
y be clear he has no need OF precedent TO vindcae him
have acted. b'''uu'
nave not, said Mr.. Calhoun, touched question which
hss mao so prominent part in the debate whether In,
winnoldng the depotes the Of the Secretary OF
me fIes'ue.' Under my view of the subject the
uon Is no, OF ,ne slightest importance. Its equally un.
authorized ana eBi whether done by President or ec
retary but as the question has been agitsted and "a m
views do not entirely correspond or this point i,
advocating the side which do, deem IL Juo r., Ct
TO express my sentiments.
have no doubt that the President removed u,o &C.,
Secretary, and placed tho present in his place exnI
with view to the removal OF the deposes. am eni,y
Gear, under all the circumstances Of the case tina, ~
PRESIDENTS conduct Is wholly indefensble; and anom,
o.ner OBJECTIONS, fear he had in view in the removal AZ
opJeet emnenly dangerous and unconstuional-to civ
on suV'n'age 70 his veto, intended by the Consu
uoh-s power intended as shield TO protect the Exeru
i've sgans ne ehcroaehment Of the Legislative depart
meno MAINTAIN the present state Of things against dan
geroUs or hssty innovatou but which I Ear A. 'ti
case intended as sword, TO defend the usurn,,o 49,
Executive. "'Pa""" VI n'
issy fear, for although the circumstance, # ia,
leads TO just apprehension that such is tbs
viii not permit myself 10 assert that such is the
80 fswless and unconstitutional object is cons,nIt
oy The PresdenG ill his act shall compel me n h,1
20 we contrary But, while thus severely condenon G
eo"unS' OF he President in removing the former
y SUI 1PPolnihg the present, I must saw that In %
oP'op IS case OF the abuse and not of fbs ys,,r,
uon o. power l cannot doubt that the PrssiJsn, 20
""oef me Con'u'u'On the right Of removal rom orc