Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1841-08-16

TO il in that case he considered the question Of |
constiiuiionahy settled not only as TO the exist
ing bank, but ON the general question OF the rights
of the People of the United States to have n bank
whenever they wished it, Now he asked whch
err, in signing that bill, Mr. Madison had ever
been charged with contradiction? Mr.. 5. had
never henrd the charge from any quarter. Did
these two Presidents abandon their duty on sign-
ing these bills? Was it their duty, because they
had originally entertained the opinion That Dank
was unconstitutional, or because Il ey might still
entertain that rs their private opinion, ms Pres
dents of the United States, TO veto the bills sub
mitted to them? Was il n derclictlon Of duty not
to do So? Mr.. s. insisted that when, in his oi-
cial capacity n President was called upon, as an
net pertaining TO his office to sign bill which had
passed both Houses Of Congress, he was not
bound to adhere to his own private and personal
opinion, but to yield his judgment to the official
settlement of the question.
hmlglt he thought hy some that MIR. :. should
go further, and say that in such case President
was bound 10 sanction the law; but ho did not
choose to 20 uher. lie thought it more respect
tu 10 the Chief Magistrates 10 take the position
that they were, as Presidents, left perfectly free to
do whatever they should Judge the oxigences OF
the country 10 require. lie did not wish them TO
DC held us slaves, fast hound Ivy any previous PR
Vale and personal opinion, but Us Presidents 10 iCel
themselves at perfect liberty 10 respond, as Mr.
Madison lind done, to the call OF the People, IN
cases where the constitutional question has been
settled by all vi uiiiriui decisions. The Ian
gunge of Mr.. Madison rGnai kablc Tor nothing
more than for its accuracy; he was luIl-nlnd-
Ell man, but at the same time II most accurate
thinker aud writer. He never employed useless
or unnIeaning Words nor did hc lcavc the sense
he intended to express doubtful or obscure.
A." Waiving ihe question of constituiiUnuty" Ii
might be asked, what right had President OF The
United States to waive the question OF tue consil-
tutionaiy of any thing? He had noue; none
whatever he was bound 10y his cath To support
the Constitution of The United States. What then
was his meaning? lie waived the question be
cause there was no longer any question undecld-
cd; the question had been settled. Although he
might privately have thought otherwise, nay, al
though he might still he of the opinion, yet
when he cast his eye over the whole land and saw
| II filled with the monuments which proved the
question 10 have been decided in the Legislature,
the judicial and the executive departments OF the
Government, and Ivy the long acquiescence OF the
| People, he came to the Just conclusion that, as
President Of the United States, he had 10 question
to settle.
On this ground he waived the question. His
words were, Waving the question Of the coilsti-
tutlonal authority of the Legislature To establish
an lncoi pOraled bank, as being PREcLuDGD, IN my
Judgment by repeated rccogut;Ons, under various
circumstances, Of the validity OF snch an us;ilu-
Iion III the acts of the Legislative, Executive and
vi NllNItN VI tIS GJNtlllllcnl u'SNlIp'hl-
cd ny indications in different modes OF concur
renee Of the general will Of the nation" lie
wal ell il; yes hut what did he waive ! Ills own
private opinion. if he still held it; or his for
mer opinion, as more openly expressed. There
Was no longer n question for him 10 decide. lie
might say himself "No matter what | may
have thought II man this question now comes
up 10 me uJ President, from laud tccmmg with
proofs that has been decided aud am TO set III
my private opinion against that Of the whole PEG
pie of the United States? No us President o
the land, toaire IT,.
MIR. :. further adveited to the fact That, whci
Mr.. Madison used this language ;he Judicial de-
cisions Ivy the Supreme Court had not yet been
gwen tur They were not made ill l0I0,) aud ask
ell how much stronger would his language hav,
been had those decisions been before him? How
could that he Unconstitutional which the tribuna
declared Ivy The Constitution itself TO he supreme
over all courts so far shs ARE concerned, had
pronounced to he constitutional!
MIR. ;. would not ask whether, under these cir
cunstauces, member of Congress at !ibert,
to urge such an objection against bank bill, bu
: whether he was bound TO do il? How could h,
be-? He might give his opinion on the point
reason for his vote; or he might leave the Hat
when the question came, as had been done by
, very distinguished individual, whose conduct la.
given rise 10 great deal Of remark at the time
bur whom MIR. 5. understood 10 approve "a
acting on the principle that when n constitutions
, question had been settled, as the bank question
has been, 10 man was Mt liberty to make M uciy
Z opposition against il, on the ground of his owl
I personal opinion. TO try this principle, he pm
] the case OF a man who, from some notions OF Ia
own rs TO the unconstii uiionaIty of law, shoul
e lurribly resist It's execution and thereby Incur til
: penalties OF treason. Would il he sulhclel
u plea in his case against senenrc of death beln
= pronounced Oh him say, that it was his lryat
opinion that the law he had resisted was uncou
c stutional ? Surely not. He might enjoy his O
pinion, but he must not carry it INTO action agains
J. The settled will Of the nation legally expire ssco
: Suppose marshal OF The U. S. called TO exc
j. cute process issued in behalf of IIe Bank, mg
S he refuse Oh the pea that he thought the BAN
unconstitutional? or might II court refuse 10 Civ
B judgment Tor the Bank in suit because one Z
s the judges on the bench held that opinion?
u Aud why would il do any better for the Pres
e dent? Let him take the Constitution MS other
/, were bound 10 take it, lie was perfectly free
l. do so, nor would lie he guilty OF Inconsistency
= IA breach Of duty in setting aside his private Up
I, ions Just MS the Judge OF subordinate court mus
l. do. II any lunciionary Of the Government wa
bound TO act otherwise, it must he on lle nilege
+ ground Of his oath 10 support The Constitution
r. but did that mean that every nun must suppO
i the Constitution "dS he understood IL? No sue
e doctrine was in the Constitution. The same oal
a was administered to every iunctionary. II OIL
I, was bound, all others werc.-An1 in n questo
like this, we might as lawfully argue from low,
J. TO higher as from higher TO a lower Office
!, If the marshal Was bound 20 take the Constu
d lion as effeclnalIy sctlled was The Presiden
If the President might insist on his right of pr
vale Judgment so might the marshal, md so II
:; Judge, and SO ng al least, every private cilizer
n and then we should come 10 that glorious state
Is universal confusion in which state every ma
Df did what was right in his own eyes. ma
I'd might have sold his neighhor quantity of ban
l. stock, and when he demanded his money The oil
Of er might say shall not pay you n dollar: Il
he bank is unconstitutional, and It's stock no mo-
lie than blank paper.
rs Mr. Mcclellan OF New York opposed Ban
vs. both on constitutional grounds aud grounds
c. policy. 1t was also opposed 10y MIR. Saunders
y North Carolina, and ably advocated by MIR. Slua
lie of Va