The Kalida venture. [volume] (Kalida, Ohio) 1841-1865, 1845-03-07


she could do indirectly what is directly for
bdden, the whole object of that provision OF
the constitution would be evaded. The OBJ
ect of the trainers of the constitution was
TO avoid recurrence of the evils that had
resulted from paper issues intended to clrcu-
late as money in the ordinary transactions
of business, but if that clause does not pro-
hibit the States from delegating the power
TO others to issue such papar as we'll as to
prohibit them from issuing it by their own
officers, then it is useless provision, and
their object has failed. Can the State dele
gate power she does not possess? 1t she
cannot, you have no power to incorporate a
bank to issue paper to circulate as money
Gentlemen need not startle at this PROPOSE
ton. 1t is true that it involves the legality
of all the paper issues in the United States,
should it be applied and enforced; but am
not striving to apply it 10 existing institutions,
If it should ever become necessary to make
the application, have. no doubt the result
would be in favor of the view have taken.
But we are now about to exercise or usurp
this power, again to infuse vitality into some
seventy or eighty new corporations, and no
time could be more proper for raising the
question. If these acts are unconstitutional
and utterly void, now is the time TO pause in
our career, when we have but few banks,
and would suffer but little frem its applica-
ton to our State.
AS said at the commencement, precedent
can never Justify us in violating the constitu-
ton which we are sworn TO support. But
upon the point of whether we have the power
TO delegate to others the right directly pro-
hibited to ourselves, have some authority.
1t is one Danial Webster, of whom you all
have some knowledge; and whatever you
may think of him as malapd politician,
no one doubts that he is profound lawyer.
| read from his speech delivered in the
Senate of the United States on the 25th day
of May, 1882, on the bill for the renewal of
the charter of the Bank of the United States.
He says:
"The generality and extent Of the power
granted to Congress, and the clear and well
defined prohibitions on the States, leave
little doubt of the intent 10 rescue the whole
subject of currency from the hands of local
Legislation, and to confer it on the General
Government. But, notwithstanding this ap-
parent purpose in the constitution, the truth
is, that the currency of the country is now
to very great extent practically and effec-
tually under the control of the several State
governments, if it be not more correct TO
say that it is under the control of the banking
institutions created by the States; for the
States seem first TO have taken possession OF
the power, and then TO have delegated it.
Whether the States can constitutionally exer-
else this power, or delegate it to others, is a
question which do not intend at present
either to concede or argue. 1t is much to
be hoped that ne controversy on the point
may ever become necessary"
Here Mr.. Webster speaks of "the cleal
and well-defned prohibitions of the States,'
and says it g leaves little doubt of an intent
to rescue the whole subject of currency from
the hands of local Legislation" back,
ing up the opinion of the Supreme Court
and adds, " the States seem first TO have
taken possession of the power, and then to
have delegated it." Mark how emphatic the
language in the next sentence, and how
clearly and explicitly it bears upon the point.
Whether the States can constitmionally erer-
else this po'per, OR DELEGATE 1T TO
OTHERS, is a question which | do not
intend at present either to concede or argue.
In this, he only takes the view that must
force itself upon every reasoning mind
and that is, that the States can neither exer-
else the power, or delegate it TO others. But
in view of the palpable violation of the Con
stitution by the States, in authorizing banks
to issue paper for circulation, and the cer-
tainty that the Court would pronounce the
whole unconstitutional and roid, ne exclaims,
I" 1t is much TO be hoped that no controversy
on the point may ever become necessary"
Why should he hope for that, if he was not
satisfied that the whole brood of bank issues
we're unconstitutional, and would be de-
clared void by the Court? The conclusion
is unavoidable. Again, l ask; will Senators
refuse to look at this constitutional question? ?
: Will they fail to explain the position they
occupy? | have shown that if you incor-
porate these banks, you do It in violation of
the constitution of Ohio---ot claim the po-
wer by departure frcm long and we'll esta-
blished principles of construction the
constitution of the United States is the su-
preme law of the land--that it prohibits any
State from emitting bills of credit-that the
Supreme Court of the United States has
defined bill of credit to be, ga paper me-
dunn intended to circulate between indivi-
duals, and between the Government and in
dividuals, for the ordinary purposes of socie-
ty''-that it was to " cut up this mischief by
the roots" that the trainers of the consttu.
ton provided that no State should "emit
bills of credit that as the State cannot
exercise the power herself, she cannot dele
gate it to her citizens, and that Daniel Web
ster sustains this view of the subject. If
these facts will have no influence on your