Chapter I: AM charged with the pleasing duty of presenting to the senate the (4)

Mr. President, I have ever regarded, with feelings of the profoundest regret, the decision which the president of the United States felt himself induced to make on the bill of 1833. If it had been his pleasure to approve it, the heads of departments would not now be taxing their ingenuity to find out useless objects of expenditures, or objects which may be well postponed to a more distant day. If the bill had passed, about twenty millions of dollars would have been, during the three last years, in the hands of the several states, applicable by them to the beneficent purposes of internal improvement, education, or colonization. What immense benefits might not have been diffused throughout the land by the active employment of that large sum? What new channels of commerce and communication might not have been opened? What industry stimulated, what labor rewarded? How many youthful minds might have received the blessings of education and knowledge, and been rescued from ignorance, vice, and ruin? How many descendants of Africa might have been transported from a country where they never can enjoy political or social equality, to the native land of their fathers, where no impediment exists to their attainment of the highest degree of elevation, intellectual, social, and political? Where they might have been successful instruments, in the hands of God, to spread the religion of his son, and to lay the foundations of civil liberty!

And, sir, when we institute a comparison between what might have been effected, and what has been in fact done, with that large amount of national treasure, our sensations of regret, on account of the fate of the bill of 1833, are still keener. Instead of its being dedicated to the beneficent uses of the whole people, and our entire country, it has been an object of scrambling amongst local corporations, and locked up in the vaults, or loaned out by the directors of a few of them, who are not under the slightest responsibility to the government or people of the United States. Instead of liberal, enlightened, and national purposes, it has been partially applied to local, limited, and selfish uses. Applied to increase the semi-annual dividends of favorite stockholders in favorite banks! Twenty millions of the national treasure are scattered in parcels among petty corporations; and whilst they are growling over the fragments and greedy for more, the secretaries are brooding on schemes for squandering the whole.

But although we have lost three precious years, the secretary of the treasury tells us that the principal is yet safe, and much good may be still achieved with it. The general government, by an extraordinary exercise of executive power, no longer affords aid to any new works of internal improvement. Although it sprung from the union, and cannot survive the union, it no longer engages in any public improvement to perpetuate the existence of the union. It is but justice to it to acknowledge, that, with the coöperation of the public-spirited state of Maryland, it effected one national road having that tendency. But the spirit of improvement pervades the land, in every variety of form, active, vigorous, and enterprising, wanting pecuniary aid as well as intelligent direction. The states have undertaken what the general government is prevented from accomplishing. They are strengthening the union by various lines of communication thrown across and through the mountains. New York has completed one great chain. Pennsylvania another, bolder in conception and far more arduous in the execution. Virginia has a similar work in progress, worthy of all her enterprise and energy. A fourth further south, where the parts of the union are too loosely connected, has been projected, and it can certainly be executed with the supplies which this bill affords, and perhaps not without them.

This bill passed, and these and other similar undertakings completed, we may indulge the patriotic hope that our union will be bound by ties and interests that render it indissoluble. As the general government withholds all direct agency from these truly national works, and from all new objects of internal improvement, ought it not to yield to the states, what is their own, the amount received from the public lands? It would thus but execute faithfully a trust expressly created by the original deeds of cession, or resulting from the treaties of acquisition. With this ample resource, every desirable object of improvement, in every part of our extensive country, may, in due time, be accomplished. Placing this exhaustless fund in the hands of the several members of the confederacy, their common federal head may address them in the glowing language of the British bard, and

‘Bid harbors open, public ways extend,
Bid temples worthier of the God ascend.
Bid the broad arch the dangerous flood contain,
The mole projecting break the roaring main.
Back to his bounds their subject sea command,
And roll obedient rivers through the land.’

The affair of the public lands was forced upon me. In the session of 1831 and 1832 a motion from a quarter politically unfriendly to me, was made to refer it to the committee of manufactures, of which I was a member. I strenuously opposed the reference. I remonstrated, I protested, I entreated, I implored. It was in vain that I insisted that the committee on the public lands was the regular standing committee to which the reference should be made. It was in vain that I contended that the public lands and domestic manufactures were subjects absolutely incongruous. The unnatural alliance was ordered by the vote of a majority of the senate. I felt that a personal embarrassment was intended me. I felt that the design was to place in my hands a many-edged instrument, which I could not touch without being wounded. Nevertheless I subdued all my repugnance, and I engaged assiduously in the task which had been so unkindly assigned me. This, or a similar bill, was the offspring of my deliberations. When reported, the report accompanying it was referred by the same majority of the senate to the very committee on the public lands to which I had unsuccessfully sought to have the subject originally assigned, for the avowed purpose of obtaining a counteracting report. But, in spite of all opposition, it passed the senate at that session. At the next, both houses of congress.

I confess, I feel anxious for the fate of this measure, less on account of any agency I have had in proposing it, as I hope and believe, than from a firm, sincere, and thorough conviction, that no one measure, ever presented to the councils of the nation, was fraught with so much unmixed good, and could exert such powerful and enduring influence in the preservation of the union itself, and upon some of its highest interests. If I can be instrumental, in any degree, in the adoption of it, I shall enjoy, in that retirement into which I hope shortly to enter, a heart-feeling satisfaction and a lasting consolation. I shall carry there no regrets, no complaints, no reproaches on my own account. When I look back upon my humble origin, left an orphan too young to have been conscious of a father’s smiles and caresses, with a widowed mother, surrounded by a numerous offspring, in the midst of pecuniary embarrassments, without a regular education, without fortune, without friends, without patrons, I have reason to be satisfied with my public career. I ought to be thankful for the high places and honors to which I have been called by the favor and partiality of my countrymen, and I am thankful and grateful. And I shall take with me the pleasing consciousness, that, in whatever station I have been placed, I have earnestly and honestly labored to justify their confidence by a faithful, fearless, and zealous discharge of my public duties. Pardon these personal allusions. I make the motion of which notice has been given.

[Leave was then granted, and the bill was introduced, read twice,
referred to the committee on the public lands, and ordered to be
printed.]

ON OUR RELATIONS WITH FRANCE.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, JANUARY 11, 1836.

[AT this session, the situation of affairs between the United
States and France having become serious and alarming, Mr. Clay
offered resolutions, calling upon the president for information,
which, although generally known to the public, he had not then
communicated to congress.]

IT must be obvious to every observer of passing events, that our affairs with France are becoming every day more and more serious in their character, and are rapidly tending to a crisis. Mutual irritations are daily occurring, from the animadversions of the public press, and among individuals, in and out of office, in both countries. And a state of feeling, greatly to be deprecated, if we are to preserve the relations of peace, must certainly be the consequence.

According to the theory of our constitution, our diplomatic concerns with foreign countries are intrusted to the president of the United States, until they reach a certain point involving the question of peace or war, and then congress is to determine on that momentous question. In other words, the president conducts our foreign intercourse; congress alone can change that intercourse from a peaceable to a belligerent one. This right, to decide the question of war, carries along with it the right to know whatever has passed between our own executive and the government of any foreign power. No matter what may be the nature of the correspondence, whether official or not, whether formal or informal, congress has the right to any and all information whatever, which may be in the possession of the other branch of the government. No senator here could have failed to have been acquainted with the fact, that the contents of a most important despatch or document has been discussed, and a most important overture canvassed in the different newspapers, in private and political circles, by individuals; every body, in fact, knows what has taken place, except the congress of the United States. The papers friendly to the administration――indeed, the whole circle of the American press――are in possession of the contents of a paper which this body has not been yet allowed to see; and I have one journal, a southern administration journal, before me, which states a new and important fact in reference to it. I have said that our situation with France grows every day more embarrassing; the aspect of our relations with her more and more dark and threatening. I could not, therefore, longer delay in making the following motion. I should have done so before, but for a prevalent rumor that the president would soon make a communication to congress, which would do away the necessity of the resolutions which I now submit, by laying before congress the information, which is the object of my motion. He has not, however, done so, and probably will not, without a call from the senate.

Mr. Clay then offered the following resolutions, which were adopted next day.

Resolved, that the president be requested to communicate to
the senate (if it be not, in his opinion, incompatible with
the public interest,) whether, since the termination of the
last congress, any overture, formal or informal, official
or unofficial, has been made by the French government to the
executive of the United States, to accommodate the difficulties
between the two governments, respecting the execution of the
convention of the fourth day of July, 1831; and, particularly,
whether a despatch from the duc de Broglie, the French minister
of foreign affairs, to the _chargé d’affaires_ at Washington,
was read, and a copy of it furnished by him to the secretary
of state, for the purpose of indicating a mode in which these
difficulties might be removed.

Resolved, also, under the resolution above mentioned, in the
event of any such overture having been made, that the president
be requested to inform the senate what answer was given to it;
and, if a copy of any such despatch was received, that he be
further requested to communicate a copy of it to the senate.

ADMISSION OF ARKANSAS INTO THE UNION.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, APRIL 11, 1836.

[NOTWITHSTANDING the compromise of the slavery question, on
the admission of Missouri into the union, many citizens of
the northern states were opposed to the admission of Arkansas,
agreeably to the terms of the compromise. Mr. Clay, however,
adhered to his former opinions, as is shown in his remarks which
follow.]

MR. CLAY rose to present several petitions which had come into his hands. They were signed by citizens of Philadelphia, many of whom were known to be of the first respectability, and the others were, no doubt, entitled to the highest consideration. The petitions were directed against the admission of Arkansas into the union, while there was a clause in her constitution prohibiting any future legislation for the abolition of slavery within her limits. He had felt considerable doubt as to the proper disposition which he should make of these petitions, while he wished to acquit himself of the duty intrusted to him. The bill for the admission of Arkansas had passed the senate, and gone to the other house. It was possible that it would be returned from that branch with an amendment, which would bring this subject into consideration. He wished the petitioners had selected some other organ. He did not concur in the prayer of the petitioners. He thought that Arkansas, and another state or territory south of forty degrees, had the entire right, according to the compromise made on the Missouri question, to frame its constitution, in reference to slavery, as it might think proper. He adhered to the opinions on this point which he held on a former memorable occasion, which would be in the recollection of senators. He would only ask that one of these memorials be read, and that the whole of them should then be laid on the table.

[Mr. King, of Alabama, expressed his regret that the senator
from Kentucky had introduced these petitions, while a bill
was pending in the other branch, in the progress of which
it was probable that this question would be stirred. If the
presentation of these petitions should bring up again the
agitation which was produced by the discussion of the Missouri
question, it would be difficult to predict the consequences
which might ensue. When the Missouri question was under
consideration, he acted with the senator from Kentucky, and
agreed to give up certain rights of the new states for the
purpose of conciliation. But he would now say, that never again
would he give up any thing for the purpose of conciliating
another quarter of the country. He repeated his astonishment
and concern, that the senator from Kentucky should have brought
forward the petitions.]

Mr. Clay said he felt unaffected surprise at the expression of regret contained in the language of the senator from Alabama, as to the presentation of these petitions. I feel no regret. The subject of these petitions I do not approve, and I stated my disapprobation. I should have been happy, had the petitioners chosen another organ, I stated, further, that my opinions were unchanged. But these petitions have been committed to my care. In presenting them, I only performed a duty――a duty, in reference to petitions, of a constitutional, almost a sacred character. I have presented the petitions, but I have asked for no other action on them than the mere laying of them on the table, although I might have done so, as the bill is yet before the other branch. It is highly competent to the legislative authority to pass another bill, to control this clause in the constitution of Arkansas. I have asked no such thing. If the question should be stirred in the other branch, as seems to be apprehended by the senator from Alabama, it is better that the petitions are presented here. Here they are. I have merely performed a duty in presenting them; yet I am chided, chided at least in tone, by the senator from Alabama, for having done so. Sure I am, sir, that in this tone of chiding, there is not another senator on this floor who will participate.

As to the principle of compromise, there were several epochs from which gentlemen might take their start. The adoption of the constitution was a compromise; the settlement of the Missouri question was the second epoch; the adjustment of the tariff was the third. The principle illustrated in all these great cases it was highly desirable should be carried out. These persons who now come before congress, think it hard that they should be excluded from any participation in the soil south of forty degrees, which was won by the aid of their treasure and their valor. Perhaps the hardship was equally severe on those whose habits have rendered them familiar with slavery, that they are virtually excluded from a residence in any of the states north of the line of forty. He concluded with saying, that he had defended the principle of compromise, in the Missouri question, with as much zeal, if not as much ability, as the senator from Alabama.

[The petitions were then laid on the table.]

ON THE FORTIFICATION BILL.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, JUNE 29, 1836.

[IN consequence of the threatening appearance of our affairs
with France, which at one time rendered a war with that nation
probable, congress, at the session of 1836, passed a bill making
large appropriations for building and repairing fortifications
on the Atlantic coast. Mr. Clay opposed the bill on account of
the extravagant amount proposed to be appropriated, as is shown
in the following brief remarks on the subject.]

MR. CLAY thought there was no inconsistency between the two propositions to amend the bill as proposed by the senator from South Carolina, with the view of reducing the amount proposed for fortifications, and to amend it as proposed by the senator from Delaware, to restrain the issue of money from the public treasury, except as it should be called for in a course of regular disbursement. Both might be well adopted, and he hoped would be.

He had, however, risen more particularly for the purpose of calling the attention of the senate to the enormous and alarming amount of appropriations which had been actually made, or were in progress, during this session. He had procured from the secretary of the senate a statement of such as had been made by bills which had passed one or both houses up to the twenty-seventh of last month, when it amounted to about twenty-five millions. Since then, other bills had passed, which swelled it up to thirty-two or three millions; and other bills were now in progress, and would probably pass, carrying it up to forty millions, or beyond that sum. Forty millions of dollars in one year, when we have no debt, and no foreign war! Will not the country be justly alarmed, profoundly astonished, when it hears of these enormous appropriations? Is it possible to proceed with the government on such a scale of expenditure?

Why, sir, it is a greater amount than is appropriated to similar objects by the British parliament, since its reform, in one year. The whole revenue of Great Britain is about forty-two millions sterling, of which sum twenty-eight millions is applied to the public debt, six to the payment of pensions, annuities, and so forth, and only about eight millions to the current annual expenses of the whole of their vast establishments, military and naval, and the civil government at home and abroad. Now, forty millions of dollars exceed eight millions sterling. Who would have supposed that an administration, which came in upon pledges and promises of retrenchment, reform, and economy, should, in the eighth year of its rule, have swelled the expenditure of the government to an amount exceeding that of Great Britain? And this surprise must be increased, when we reflect that the British parliament stands to the people of Great Britain in the double relation of the federal and state governments to the people of the United States.

When Mr. Adams left the administration, the current annual expenses of the government, exclusive of the public debt, amounted to about twelve millions. Only a few years ago, a secretary of the treasury under the present administration, (Mr. McLane,) estimated the ordinary expenses of the government at fifteen millions annually. Even during the present session, the able senator from New York, when the land bill was under discussion, placed them, for a series of succeeding years, at eighteen millions. And now we propose, in this year, to more than treble the amount of expenditure during the extravagant administration, as it was charged, of Mr. Adams!

Mr. Clay hoped the senate would pause. He called upon the friends of the administration, in no taunting or reproachful spirit, to redeem the pledges and promises with which they came into power. If the love of country, if a faithful discharge of duty to the people, if a just economy, would not animate them, and stay these extravagant appropriations, he hoped the devotion to party would. Could they expect to continue in power, (and he candidly confessed, that he was not particularly anxious that they should,) with such unexampled appropriations? How can they meet their constituents with these bills staring them in the face?

And for what purpose shall they be made? Does any man believe, will any senator rise in his place and say, that these immense appropriations can be prudently, safely, and wisely disbursed? He had, indeed, heard that it was not expected they would be. He had heard, what was too wicked, profligate, and monstrous for him to believe, that it was intended to withdraw the appropriations from the public treasury, place them to the credit of disbursing officers, in the custody of local banks, and thus elude the operation of the deposit bill, which has recently passed. That bill had been demanded by the people of this country. It had passed from a profound sense of duty, in consequence of that demand, by unprecedented majorities in both houses. And he would not allow himself for a moment to believe, that a sinister design existed any where, to elude the operation of that great and salutary measure. What, sir! is the money of the people of this country, to be held in the deposit banks, one of which, according to a statement going the rounds of the papers, has made fourteen and a half per centum dividend for six months?

The annual average appropriations for fortifications heretofore, have been about seven hundred and fifty or eight hundred thousand dollars; and by the bill now before us, and that for a similar object which we have sent to the house, if both pass, we shall have appropriated for fortifications for one year, four millions and a half. Is it possible in one year judiciously to expend this enormous sum? When we look at the price of labor, the demands upon it for an increase of the army, for volunteers, and for the general avocations of society, does any body believe, that this vast sum can be judiciously laid out? It has been said, that, having omitted to make any appropriation last year, we ought this year to appropriate double the ordinary sum. But, if you cannot safely expend it, why should that be done? He was willing to make large and liberal appropriations for the navy and for fortifications; we ought, however, to look to all our great interests, and regulate the appropriations in reference to a survey of the whole country; and he earnestly entreated the senate to fulfil the hopes and expectations which had been recently inspired in the people of this country, by checking and putting itself decidedly against this rash, wild, and ruinous extravagance. He would vote for the commitment, to reduce the appropriations one half; after which there would remain an amount equal to double the ordinary annual appropriations, without including the sum in the bill now before the house.

ON RECOGNISING THE INDEPENDENCE OF TEXAS.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, JULY 1, 1836.

[IN March, 1836, a convention of forty-four delegates
assembled at the town of Washington, in Texas, and made a
formal declaration of independence and separation from the
republic of Mexico. A previous declaration had been made by a
few individuals in Texas, in December, 1835. On the twenty-first
of April, 1836, a decisive battle was fought on the banks of the
San Jacinto river, between the Texans and Mexicans, in which the
latter were defeated, and president Santa Ana taken prisoner. An
armistice was concluded in May, 1836, between Santa Ana and the
president of Texas, Mr. Burnet, by which the former was released
and sent home, and the Mexican troops evacuated the territory of
Texas; Santa Ana agreeing not to take up arms, nor to exercise
his influence against Texas during the war of independence.
Under these circumstances, a proposition was brought before
congress to acknowledge the independence of Texas, when Mr. Clay
expressed his sentiments as follows.

Mr. Preston made some remarks, in the course of which he stated,
that he had with difficulty restrained himself from offering an
amendment to recognise the independence of Texas immediately.
He gave a brief narrative of the events of the revolution in
Texas, and stated that he had this morning received authentic
information, in the form of a letter from Mr. Austin, which
confirms the statement that general Filasola had carried into
effect the armistice agreed on between the Texian government and
Santa Ana. This treaty Mr. Preston regarded as amounting to a
recognition, on the part of Mexico, of the independence of Texas.
The vice-president of Texas was about to proceed to Vera Cruz,
to enforce from the mouths of the Texian guns the conclusion of
a definitive treaty of peace between the two countries.

Mr. Preston continued, at some length, to expatiate on the
situation and achievements and claims of Texas, and adverted to
certain treaty stipulations with Mexico concerning the Indians
west of the Sabine, which stipulations it would only be in
the power of Texas now to carry into effect. He concluded
with offering to amend the resolution, by adding an expression
of the gratification which the senate felt on hearing of the
course taken by the president of the United States to obtain
information of the situation of Texas.

The report of the committee concluded with the following
resolution.

Resolved, that the independence of Texas ought to be
acknowledged by the United States, whenever satisfactory
information shall be received that it has in successful
operation a civil government, capable of performing the duties
and fulfilling the obligations of an independent power.]

MR. CLAY said, that the report of the committee on foreign relations was so full, and the session was so near its termination, that he had not thought it necessary to add one word to what that document contained; and he should not now have risen but for the amendment proposed by the senator from South Carolina, (Mr. Preston,) and what had fallen from him.

With respect to that amendment, I have no objection to it, and wish it to be adopted. The committee on foreign relations had reported a resolution, ♦declaring that Texas ought to be recognised as an independent power, as soon as satisfactory information is acquired, that it has an established government in successful operation. The president states, in a message received in the senate subsequent to the report, that he has adopted measures to obtain that information. There is, therefore, an entire consistency between the resolution of the committee, the message of the president, and the proposed amendment, and he hoped it would be agreed to.

The senator from South Carolina, actuated by very natural and proper feelings, would be glad to propose a stronger measure, one of immediate recognition, but feels restrained by the dictates of his sober judgment. I, too, Mr. President, would be most happy, if the state of our information, and the course of events, were such as to warrant the adoption of that stronger measure. But I do not concur in the opinion which has been expressed, that the actual independence of Texas, by the overthrow or expulsion of the armies of Mexico, is the only consideration which should guide us in deciding the question of recognition. There is another, scarcely of less importance, and that is, whether there is in Texas a civil government in successful operation, competent to sustain the relations of an independent power. This is the very point on which we want information, and that respecting which the president is, we are given to understand, now endeavoring to obtain it. And, surely, considering how recently Texas has adopted a constitution of government, it is not unreasonable to wait a short time to see what its operation will be.

But there are other considerations which ought not to be overlooked by a wise and discreet government. We are told by the senator from South Carolina, that the vice-president of Texas is on his way to La Vera Cruz, to negotiate with the Mexican government a definitive treaty of peace between the two powers, and, consequently, an acknowledgment of the independence of Texas. This fact furnishes an additional motive on the part of the United States for forbearing, at present, to proceed to the formal acknowledgment of the independence of Texas. And how much more glorious will it not be for Texas herself, by her own valor, to force from her enemy the first acknowledgment of her independence?

We ought to discriminate between Santa Ana――the blood-thirsty vain-boasting, military tyrant, who has met in his overthrow and captivity a merited fate――and the eight millions of Mexicans, over whom he was exercising military sway. We should not allow the feelings of just indignation, which his conduct has excited, to transport us against the perhaps unoffending people whom he has controlled. We ought to recollect, that Mexico is our neighbor, having conterminous territory; that as long as we both remain independent powers, we shall stand in that relation to her, that we are carrying on, by sea and by land, a commerce highly beneficial to both parties; and that it is the interest of both to cultivate the most amicable and harmonious intercourse. If we proceed precipitately, and prematurely, how will our conduct be regarded by Mexico? May we not lay the foundations of a lasting and injurious misunderstanding? If, indeed, Mexico delays unreasonably the acknowledgment of the independence of Texas, and resolves on the prosecution of the war, I should be far from thinking that the United States ought to postpone, to any distant day, the recognition of Texas, after the desired information is obtained. The senator from South Carolina has supposed it to be necessary to recognise Texas, in order to insure the execution of existing treaties with Mexico. So far as they affect Texas, she is as much bound by them, as if they had been negotiated under her express authority. For I suppose it to be incontestable, that a nation remains bound by all the treaties it has formed, however often it may think proper to change the form of its government; and that all the parts of a common nation also continue so bound, notwithstanding and after they shall have formed themselves into separate and independent powers.

Then there are other considerations, which recommend us to act on full information, and with due deliberation. It is undeniable, that many citizens of the United States, impelled by a noble devotion to the cause of liberty, have rushed to the succor of Texas, and contributed to the achievement of her independence. This has been done without the sanction or authority of this government; but it nevertheless exposes us to unworthy imputations. It is known that European powers attribute to our union unbounded ambition, and a desire of aggrandizing ourselves at the expense of our neighbors. The extensive acquisition of territory by the treaties of Louisiana and Florida, peaceful and upon a fair consideration as it was, is appealed to as sustaining the unfounded charge against us. Now, if, after Texas has declared her independence not quite four months ago, we should hasten to acknowledge it, considering the aid afforded by citizens of the United States, should we not give countenance to those imputations? Does not a just regard to our own character, as a wise, cautious, and dignified power, a just regard to the opinion of the people of Mexico, and a just regard to that of the impartial world, require that we should avoid all appearance of haste and precipitation? And, when we have reason to suppose, that not a single hostile bayonet remains in Texas, and when the ceremony of recognition, performed now, or a few months hence, can be of no material consequence to her, is it not better for all parties that we should wait a little while longer.

The senator from South Carolina refers to the policy which has constantly guided our councils in regard to the acknowledgment of new powers, or new governments, and he has correctly stated it. But it would not be at all difficult, if it were proper to detain the senate, to show an essential difference between the present instance and the cases of France, of Spanish America, and of Greece, to which he has adverted. There is an obvious difference in the duration of the new governments, and the degree of information which we possess about them.

The senate, without the coöperation of the executive in some way, is incompetent to recognise Texas. The president tells us, in his message, that he has adopted measures to acquire necessary information to guide his judgment. We also want it. He cannot be justly accused of having delayed unreasonably to act. There is ground to believe, not only that Texas is independent, but that it has a government in practical operation. I sincerely hope it has; and that it has laid, on deep foundations, perfect securities for liberty, law, and order. In the mean time, every prudential consideration seems to me to require, that we should stop with the resolution and proposed amendment. Such appears to be the deliberate judgment of the senator himself. I sincerely, I most anxiously hope, that the desired information will be soon obtained by the executive; and that the feelings and wishes for the acknowledgment of the independence of Texas, which so generally prevail among our constituents, may be speedily gratified.

[After some further debate, the resolution was agreed to by a
unanimous vote.]

ON THE EXPUNGING RESOLUTION.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, JANUARY 16, 1837.

[ON the twenty-eighth of March, 1834, the senate of the United
States adopted, by a vote of twenty-six to twenty, the following
resolution, which was offered by Mr. Clay, relative to the
removal of the public deposits from the bank of the United
States.

‘Resolved, that the president, in the late executive proceedings
in relation to the public revenue, has assumed upon himself
authority and power not conferred by the constitution and laws,
but in derogation of both.’

This resolution Mr. Benton, of Missouri, in February, 1835,
brought forward a motion to expunge from the journals of the
senate; but that body, on the third of March, by a vote of
thirty-nine to seven, refused to sustain the motion. Mr. Benton,
however, continued to agitate the subject, and, at the session
of 1836–7, the majority of the senate having been changed in
favor of president Jackson, an expunging resolution was offered
by Mr. Benton, and, after an exciting debate, carried. On this
occasion Mr. Clay addressed the senate in the following speech,
which may be numbered among his most powerful efforts in the
cause of the constitution, and the rights of the legislative
against executive power.]

CONSIDERING that I was the mover of the resolution of March, 1834, and the consequent relation in which I stood to the majority of the senate by whose vote it was adopted, I feel it to be my duty to say something on this expunging resolution, and I always have intended to do so when I should be persuaded that there existed a settled purpose of pressing it to a final decision. But it was so taken up and put down at the last session――taken up one day, when a speech was prepared for delivery, and put down when it was pronounced――that I really doubted, whether there existed any serious intention of ever putting it to the vote. At the very close of the last session, it will be recollected that the resolution came up, and in several quarters of the senate a disposition was manifested to come to a definitive decision. On that occasion, I offered to waive my right to address the senate, and silently to vote upon the resolution; but it was again laid upon the table, and laid there for ever, as the country supposed, and as I believed. It is, however, now revived; and sundry changes having taken place in the members of this body, it would seem that the present design is to bring the resolution to an absolute conclusion.

I have not risen to repeat at full length the argument by which the friends of the resolution of March, 1834, sustained it. That argument is before the world, was unanswered at the time, and is unanswerable. And I here, in my place, in the presence of my country and my God, after the fullest consideration and deliberation of which my mind is capable, reassert my solemn conviction of the truth of every proposition contained in that resolution. But whilst it is not my intention to commit such an infliction upon the senate as that would be, of retracing the whole ground of argument formerly occupied, I desire to lay before it at this time, a brief and true state of the case. Before the fatal step is taken, of giving to the expunging resolution the sanction of the American senate, I wish, by presenting a faithful outline of the real questions involved in the resolution of 1834, to make a last, even if it is to be an ineffectual appeal, to the sober judgments of senators. I begin by reasserting the truth of that resolution.

Our British ancestors understood perfectly well the immense importance of the money power in a representative government. It is the great lever by which the crown is touched, and made to conform its administration to the interests of the kingdom, and the will of the people. Deprive parliament of the power of freely granting or withholding supplies, and surrender to the king the purse of the nation, he instantly becomes an absolute monarch. Whatever may be the form of government, elective or hereditary, democratic or despotic, that person who commands the force of the nation, and at the same time has uncontrolled possession of the purse of the nation, has absolute power, whatever may be the official name by which he is called.

Our immediate ancestors, profiting by the lessons on civil liberty, which had been taught in the country from which we sprung, endeavored to encircle around the public purse, in the hands of congress, every possible security against the intrusion of the executive. With this view, congress alone is invested by the constitution with the power to lay and _collect_ the taxes. When collected, not a cent is to be drawn from the public treasury, but in virtue of an act of congress. And among the first acts of this government, was the passage of a law establishing the treasury department, for the safe keeping and the legal and regular disbursement of the money so collected. By that act a secretary of the treasury is placed at the head of the department; and varying in respect from all the other departments, he is to report, not to the president, but directly to congress, and is liable to be called to give information in person before congress. It is impossible to examine dispassionately that act, without coming to the conclusion that he is emphatically the agent of congress in performing the duties assigned by the constitution of congress. The act further provides that a treasurer shall be appointed to receive and keep the public money, and none can be drawn from his custody but under the authority of a law, and in virtue of a warrant drawn by the secretary of the treasury, countersigned by the comptroller, and recorded by the register. Only when such a warrant is presented can the treasurer lawfully pay one dollar from the public purse. Why was the concurrence of these four officers required in disbursements of the public money? Was it not for greater security? Was it not intended that each, exercising a separate and independent will, should be a check upon every other? Was it not the purpose of the law to consider each of these four officers, acting in his proper sphere, not as a mere automaton, but as an intellectual, intelligent, and responsible person, bound to observe the law, and to stop the warrant, or stop the money, if the authority of the law were wanting?

Thus stood the treasury from 1789 to 1816. During that long time no president had ever attempted to interfere with the custody of the public purse. It remained where the law placed it, undisturbed, and every chief magistrate, including the father of his country, respected the law.

In 1816 an act passed to establish the late bank of the United States for the term of twenty years; and, by the sixteenth section of the act, it is enacted,

‘That the deposits of the money of the United States in
places in which the said bank and the branches thereof may be
established, shall be made in said bank or branches thereof,
unless the secretary of the treasury shall at any time otherwise
order and direct; in which case the secretary of the treasury
shall immediately lay before congress, if in session, and if
not, immediately after the commencement of the next session, the
reasons of such order or direction.’

Thus it is perfectly manifest, from the express words of the law, that the power to make any order or direction for the removal of the public deposits, is confided to the secretary alone, to the absolute exclusion of the president, and all the world besides. And the law, proceeding upon the established principle, that the secretary of the treasury, in all that concerns the public purse, acts as the direct agent of congress, requires, in the event of _his_ ordering or directing a removal of the deposits, that he shall immediately lay his reasons therefor before whom? the president? No: before congress.

So stood the public treasury and the public deposits from the year 1816 to September, 1833. In all that period of seventeen years, running through or into four several administrations of the government, the law had its uninterrupted operation, no chief magistrate having assumed upon himself the power of diverting the public purse from its lawful custody, or of substituting his will to that of the officer to whose care it was exclusively intrusted.

In the session of congress of 1832–3, an inquiry had been instituted by the house of representatives into the condition of the bank of the United States. It resulted in a conviction of its entire safety, and a declaration by the house, made only a short time before the adjournment of congress on the fourth of March, 1833, that the public deposits were perfectly secure. This declaration was probably made in consequence of suspicions then afloat of a design on the part of the executive to remove the deposits. These suspicions were denied by the press friendly to the administration. Nevertheless, the members had scarcely reached their respective homes, before measures were commenced by the executive to effect a removal of the deposits from that very place of safety which it was among the last acts of the house to declare existed in the bank of the United States.

In prosecution of this design, Mr. McLane, the secretary of the treasury, who was decidedly opposed to such a measure, was promoted to the department of state, and Mr. Duane was appointed to succeed him. But Mr. Duane was equally convinced with his predecessor, that he was forbidden by every consideration of duty to execute the power with which the law had intrusted the secretary of the treasury, and refused to remove the deposits; whereupon he was dismissed from office, a new secretary of the treasury was appointed, and, in September, 1833, by the command of the president, the measure was finally accomplished. That it was the president’s act was never denied, but proclaimed, boasted, defended. It fell upon the country like a thunderbolt, agitating the union from one extremity to the other. The stoutest adherents of the administration were alarmed; and all thinking men, not blinded by party prejudice, beheld in the act a bold and dangerous exercise of power; and no human sagacity can now foresee the tremendous consequences which will ensue. The measure was adopted not long before the approaching session of congress; and, as the concurrence of both branches might be necessary to compel a restoration of the deposits, the object was to take the chance of a possible division between them, and thereby defeat the restoration.

And where did the president find the power for this most extraordinary act? It has been seen that the constitution, jealous of all executive interference with the treasury of the nation, had confined it to the exclusive care of congress by every precautionary guard, from the first imposition of the taxes to the final disbursement of the public money.

It has been seen that the language of the sixteenth section of the law of 1816 is express and free from all ambiguity; and that the secretary of the treasury is the sole, exclusive depository of the authority which it confers.

Those who maintain the power of the president, have to support it against the positive language of the constitution, against the explicit words of the statute, and against the genius and theory of all our institutions.

And how do they surmount these insuperable obstacles? By a series of far-fetched implications, which, if every one of them were as true as they are believed to be incorrect or perverted, would stop far short of maintaining the power which was exercised.

The first of these implied powers is, that of dismissal, which is claimed for the president. Of all the questioned powers ever exercised by the government, this is the most questionable. From the first congress down to the present administration, it had never been examined. It was carried then, in the senate, by the casting vote of the vice-president. And those who, at that day, argued in behalf of the power, contended for it upon conditions which have been utterly disregarded by the present chief magistrate. The power of dismissal is nowhere in the constitution granted, in express terms, to the president. It is not a necessary incident to any granted power; and the friends of the power have never been able to agree among themselves as to the precise part of the constitution from which it springs.

But, if the power of dismissal was as incontestable as it is justly controvertible, we utterly deny the consequences deduced from it. The argument is, that the president has, by implication, the power of dismissal. From this first implication, another is drawn, and that is, that the president has the power to control the officer, whom he may dismiss, in the discharge of his duties, in all cases whatever; and that this power of control is so comprehensive as to include even the case of a specific duty expressly assigned by law to the designated officer.

Now, we deny these results from the dismissing power. That power, if it exists, can draw after it only a right of general superintendence. It cannot authorize the president to substitute his will to the will of the officer charged with the performance of official duties. Above all, it cannot justify such a substitution in a case where the law, as in the present instance, assigns to a designated officer exclusively the performance of a particular duty, and commands him to report, not to the president, but to congress, in a case regarding the public purse of the nation, committed to the exclusive control of congress.

Such a consequence as that which I am contesting would concentrate in the hands of one man the entire executive power of the nation, uncontrolled and unchecked.

It would be utterly destructive of all official responsibility. Instead of each officer being responsible, in his own separate sphere, for his official acts, he would shelter himself behind the orders of the president. And what tribunal, in heaven above or on earth below, could render judgment against any officer for an act, however atrocious, performed by the express command of the president, which, according to the argument, he was absolutely bound to obey?

Whilst all other official responsibility would be utterly annihilated in subordinated officers, there would be no practical or available responsibility in the president himself.

But the case has been supposed, of a necessity for the removal of the deposits, and a refusal of the secretary of the treasury to remove them; and it is triumphantly asked if, in such a case, the president may not remove him, and command the deed to be done. That is an extreme case, which may be met by another. Suppose the president, without any necessity, orders the removal from a place of safety to a place of hazard. If there be danger that a president may neglect his duty, there is equal danger that a president may abuse his authority. Infallibility is not a human attribute. And there is more security for the public in holding the secretary of the treasury to the strict performance of an official duty specially assigned _to him_, under all his official responsibility, than to allow the president to wrest the work from his hands, annihilate his responsibility, and stand himself practically irresponsible. It is far better that millions should be lost by the neglect of a secretary of the treasury, than to establish the monstrous principle that all the checks and balances of the executive government shall be broken down, the whole power absorbed by one man, and his will become the supreme rule. The argument which I am combating places the whole treasury of the nation at the mercy of the executive. It is in vain to talk of appropriations by law, and the formalities of warrants upon the treasury. Assuming the argument to be correct, what is to prevent the execution of an order from the president to the secretary of the treasury to issue a warrant, without the sanction of a previous legal appropriation, to the comptroller to countersign it, to the register to register it, and to the treasurer to pay it? What becomes of that quadruple security which the precaution of the law provided? Instead of four substantive and independent wills, acting under legal obligations, all are merged in the executive voters.

But there was in point of fact, no cause, none whatever for the measure. Every fiscal consideration, (and no other had the secretary or the president a right to entertain,) required the deposits to be left undisturbed in the place of perfect safety where by law they were. We told you so at the time. We asserted that the charges of insecurity and insolvency of the bank were without the slightest foundation. And time, that great arbiter of human controversies, has confirmed all that we said. The bank, from documents submitted to congress by the secretary of the treasury at the present session, appears to be able not only to return every dollar of the stock held in its capital by the public, but an addition of eleven per centum beyond it.

Those who defend the executive act, have to maintain not only that the president may assume upon himself the discharge of a duty especially assigned to the secretary of the treasury, but that he may remove that officer, arbitrarily, and without any cause, because he refused to remove the public deposits without cause.

My mind conducts me to a totally different conclusion. I think, I solemnly believe, that the president ‘assumed upon himself authority and power not conferred by the constitution and laws, but in derogation of both,’ in the language of the resolution. I believed then in the truth of the resolution; and I now in my place, and under all my responsibility, reavow my unshaken conviction of it.