The Yazoo City Whig and political register. (Yazoo City, Miss.) 183?-1840, 1839-11-29

&c WhiCils d ACSilAS tuo CuStOl1S, II untOuCDeQ
= even by the Treasury order. Strange in
II consistency! sins ular delusion But has /
!, come to this, that Congress has suuendere,
an unlimited discretion, as regards the
t funds receivable for the public dues, into
the hands of the Secretary Of Treasury, and
i, must not now interfere That, in the
, option Of the Senator from Missouri, ii is
all right that the Secretary Of the Treasury
shoald possess the discretionary power Of re-
ceving or rejecting bank paper, in payment
OF the public dues of discriminating be-
tween different individuals and different
branches of the public revenue of putting
up and putting down bank paper at his
pleasure, but that for Congress 10 interpose
and aS6ne or limit that discretion. Is vio-
tfatlOn OF the CONSTITUTION. mat Tor the
Secretary Of the Treasury to regulate the
currency at his pleasure, and put up and
put down state banks and their paper, is all
right but that for Congress to limit and de-
fine his power in these respects, is unconsti-
tutional. The Secretary Of the Treasury,
then, must be above Congress, and above
the Constitution, possessing an omnipOtent,
Interchangeable, irreveasible power on this
subject. Is not the Senate astounded by
the avowal and advocacy Of such doctrines
upon this AOor-doctrines worthy of the
POlignacs of France, and of the Stuarts Of
England, but wholly incompatible with the
genius of our institutions, and directly con
Trajectory, as shall be shown hereafter, to
the opinions upon this subject of our patriot
President. Are the American people pre-
pared to sustain these Observation-Disclosures
which are essentially monaTchical-Which
take from Congress all power over this sub
llect; which deny their authority, the au-
thority Of the representatives. Of the people
and Of the states, and erect the Secretary Of
Treasury into a dictator, whose mandates
we may not control or alter? Sir, If the
Secretary of the Treasury may thus abolish
our power on this subject, and tender it un-
constitutional for us to interfere with his
orders, why may not every other Secretary
of every other Department claim similar
power, and the same exemption from our
cOntroli Such doctrines are the essence of
despotism, and now for the first time have
they been openly avOwed upon this floor,
and in this country. Tell me not, then, that
the Secretary Of the Treasury may T44eivs
or reject bank paper at his pleasure /; may
receive it, as he now does, for customs, and
reject it in payment for the public lands, and
that il is unconstitutional for Congress to
regulate, define, and limit that discretion.
Standing upon the broad basis Of the Con-
stitutiOn, he would resist such doctrines,
for they can only be maintained BY total
overthrow of free government, and the estab-
iiShmeRt Of arbitrary and despOtc power.
But the Senator from Missouri tells US,
that he objects TO the bill Of the committee
as an act Of Congress, when it should hayo
been a resolution. Sir, does that Senator
contend that, in directions given by Con-
gress to the Secretary Of the Treasury, as
regards the funds receivable for the public
dues, there is any distinction between be
{ enacted, and Be Il resOIDed, by the Con-
PRESS Of the United States? The COnsti-
ution p-escribes no such form, and Tecog-
rises no such distinction. 1t requires Joint
except for adjournment, as we'll
g laws, TO be approved BY the President,
nd when this is done, they have the same
obligatory energy in limiting and directing
he acts Of our public agents. Sir, when
he Senator from Missouri urged this new
ELECTION, he seemed to have forgotten his
Peech Of December last, in which, when
upon the joint resolution of
Sl6, he declared, "THTs Is THE Law )" but
oW that Senator would have us believe
hat joint resolution is not equivalent to
Nv of Congress. But If there be this dis
Hction between a law aud joint resolu-
on, in support If this plea Of abatement,
pom which the Senator from Missouri nov
slies, il shall be shown, bafOre the close ot
his address, that the Senator from Missouri
as himself, within the last twelve months,
rOposed laws, and amendments to laws,
xpressly authorizing the receipt Of bank
lper in payment of the public dues and,
Dnseqnenily, If his own argument be true.
as proposed repeal Of the Constitution"
efore, however, proceeding 70 this branch
the subject, let me ask, If the reception
bank paper in payment Of the public
les be a isolation Of the Constitution,
len not only have Congress- but this ad-
ilstration, and every one preceded it,
lifnTmly violated the Constitution. Down
the period Of the treasury order Of July
81, this administration has constantly re-
lived bank paper in payment Of the federal
venue, and is still receiving II, even under
e treasury order, in payment Of customs.
he argument, then, Of the Senator from
issouri, Is a bitter dennnciation of the
lole course Of the President on this sub
q, preceding the treasury order. and ii is
% denunciation Of the principles Of that
der, 80 far as il does not exclude bank
per, 70 payment Of customs. The admin-
ration is now receiving bank paper ID
yment Of customs. and no change "a this
beet Is proposed BY the President: ana
Tie Senator from Missouri tells us, that
Congress to authorize the reception Of
nk paper, IN payment DC the public dues,
70 repeal the constitution. Here IS con-
lstve evidence, that the Senator from
ssonfi goes Far beyond the views sc tho