Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1842-01-29

tain description of bank noes-was a perversion of the
power and ofcoursc not warranted by the Constitution.
1T was, fact, to change the taxing into penal power
two powers however alike in form and appearance,
that wholly different in their nature and intention.
The object Of tic penal po,cer IS to PIT don DESTROY and
suppress that against arhich is directed; II is directly
hostile 10 IL while on the contrary, the taxing power, al
though ii may have extent the effect, does
,cW IL; ind far from seeking thai suppression
destruction Of its object that eonid be aiat 10 lis real
sign just, in this case, the suppression Of
small notes would be loss of the revenue from that
source.
Now, he held, as he had already stated, such per-
versionhe changing, under the specious retention of
the name, the taxing into another and hostile power
the penal-o be highly dangerous and unconstitutional
Once admitted, and there would be limitation of the
powers of this Government. There is not snole
power reserved 10 the States that might be over
ruled by il. Even Wills and conveyances Of real es
aies, might be as eiectuay suppressed, regulated
as bank notes; and the might be Invested Of
every description OF property held under the laws of tie
States. This not the first time that he had raised
his voice against this dangerous stretch Of power.
suggestion of the kind thrown by the Senator
from Virginia over tic way, MIR Rives in 1874 which
he (Nlr c. then resisted on the grounds on which he
now opposed this amendment; and he had been for
more than dozen Of years contcnding against the
peEverson Of power in the of the protective
tariff Yes it is the identical principle which this
amendment rests, that that odous and detestable system
was reared, which has inflicted the evils on the country
under which it is suffering
But i'll opposing this abusive use of the taxing pow
er, he was no friend TO small notes. On the Contrary
he believed that they had caused much mischief, and
had greatly accelerated the calamity that had beallen
the banks and the country lie had long since as far
back as 1854, fully expressed hmselfon this subject
But experience had taught him, that in attempting
to remedy political disorders, must be careful mol
to use means that may be productive of as much mis-.
chief more, than the disease to be removed Such,
he believed, would be the case in this instance. As
mschievons he admitted small notes TO be- he could
not consent to violate the Constitution and introduce
remedy so dangerous the peryersion Of The taxing
into penal power, to suppress the evil 1t was a
maxim with him, in no to redress any evil, how
ever great, by the niracton of the Constitution in
the smallest particular, stretching the powers Of
that sacred instrument beyond their appropriate limits
was on that principle lie acted in the present case
and on which he prepared 10 act, in an analogous
case, when it came up-that of perverting the bank
rupt power for objects intended in reference 10
the banks. As much rs he opposed 10 the whole
system he would not consent that il should be DESTROY
ed by forbidden instruments.
], obvious, said Mr.. Calhoun, that there lies
at the bottom of all the remarks which have been
mode on this occasion, question much deeper and
more comprehensive than the one which gave rise
10 them. That question is neither more nor les,
thsn the great ONE Is the circulation of bank note