stantly expressed the opinion that a new era had commenced; that a question of principle, and a question of the highest importance, had arisen, or would. immediately arise; that, hereafter, the dispute would not be so much about means as ends; that the extent of the constitutional obligation of the Government would be controverted; in short, that the question, whether it was the duty of Congress to concern itself with the national currency, must, inevita, bly, become the leading topic of the times. So I thought, whenever I had the pleasure of addressing my fellow-citizens, and so I feel and think now. I said often on these occasions, and I say now, that it is a question which the people, by the regular exercise of their elective franchise, must decide. The subject is one of so much permanent importance, and public men have become so committed, on the one side or the other, that the decision must, as I think, be made by the country. We see an entirely new state of things. We behold new and untried principles of administration advanced and adopted. We witness an avowed and bold rejection of the policy hitherto always prevailing. The Government has come, not to a pause, but to a revulsion. It not only stops, but it starts back; it abandons the course which it has been pursuing for near fifty years, and it reproaches itself with having been acting, all that time, beyond the limits of its constitutional power.

It was my second proposition, sir, that the message, the bill, and the amendment, taken together, deny, in substance, that this Government has any power or duty connected with the currency, or the exchanges, beyond the mere regulation of the coins.

And, sir, is this not true? We are to judge of the message by what it omits, as well as by what it proposes. Congress is called together in a great commercial crisis. The whole business of the country is arrested by a sudden disorder of the currency. And what is proposed? Any thing to restore this currency? Any thing, with a direct view of producing the resumption of payment by the banks? Is a single measure offered, or suggested, the main purpose of which is general relief to the country? Not one. No, sir, not one. The administration confines its measures to the Government itself. It proposes a loan, by the means of Treasury notes, to make good the deficiency in the revenue; and it proposes secure vaults, and strong boxes, for the safekeeping of the public moneys; and here its paternal care ends. Does the message propose to grapple, in any way, with the main evil of the times? Seeing that that evil is one affecting the currency, does the message, like that of Mr. Madison, in 1815, address itself directly to that point, and recommend measures of adequate relief? No such thing. It abstains from all general relief. It looks out for the interest of the Government, as a Government; and it looks no further. Sir, let me turn to the message itself, to show that all its recommendations, and, indeed, all the objects in calling Congress together, are confined to the narrow and exclusive purpose of relieving the wants of Government.

The President says, that the regulations established by Congress, for the deposite and safe-keeping of the public moneys, having become inoperative by the suspension of payment by the banks; and apprehending that the same cause would so diminish the revenue, that the receipts into the Treasury. would not be sufficient to defray the expenses of Government; and as questions were also expected to arise, respecting the October instalment of the deposite to the States, and doubting whether Government would be able to pay its creditors in specie, or its equivalent, according to law, he felt it to be his duty to call Congress together. These are the reasons for calling Congress. They are all the reasons; and they all have exclusive regard to the Government itself.

In the next place, let us see what measures the message recommends to Congress. In its own language, the objects demanding its attention are

"To regulate, by law, the safe-keeping, transfer, and disbursement of the public moneys; to designate the funds to be received and paid by the Government; to enable the Treasury to meet promptly every demand upon it; to prescribe the terms of indulgence, and the mode of settlement to be adopted, as well in collecting from individuals the revenue that has accrued, as in withdrawing it from former depositories."

These are all the objects recommended particularly to the care of Congress; and the enumeration of them is followed by a general suggestion, that Congress will adopt such further measures as may promote the prosperity of the country. This whole enumeration, it is obvious, is confined to the wants and convenience of the Government itself.

And now, sir, let us see on what grounds it is, that the message refrains from recommending measures of general relief. The President says

"It was not designed by the constitution that the Government should assume the management of domestic or foreign exchange. It is, indeed, authorized to regulate, by law, the commerce between the States, and to provide a general standard of value or medium of exchange in gold and silver; but it is not its province to aid individuals in the transfer of their funds, otherwise than through the facilities afforded by the Post Office Department. As justly might it be called on to provide for the transportation of their merchandise."

And again:

"If, therefore, I refrain from suggesting to Congress any specific plan for regulating the exchanges of the country, relieving relieving mercantile embarrassments, or interfering with the ordinary operations of foreign or domestic commerce, it is from a conviction that such measures are not within the constitutional province of the General Government, and that their adoption would not promote the real and permanent welfare of those they might be designed to aid."

The President, then, sir, declines to recommend any measure for the relief of commerce, for the restoration of the currency, or for the benefit of exchanges, on the avowed ground, that, in his opinion, such measures are not within the constitutional power of Congress. He is distinct and explicit, and so far entitled to credit. He denies, broadly and flatly, that there is any authority in this Government to regulate the currency, and the exchanges, beyond its care of the coin. The question, then, is fairly stated. It cannot be misunderstood; and we are now to see how Congress, and, what is much more important, how the country will settle it.

Mr. President, if, in May last, when specie payments were suspended, the president of one of the banks had called his council of directors together, informed them that their affairs were threatened with danger, that they could not collect their debts in specie, and might not be able to pay their creditors in specie, and recommended such measures as he thought their interest required; his policy, in all this, would have been no more exclusively confined to the interests of his corporation, than the policy of the message is confined to the interests of this great corporation of Government. Both in practice, therefore, and on principle, in reality, and avowedly, the administration abandons the currency to its fate. It surrenders all care over it, declines all concern about it, and denies that it has any duty connected with it.

Sir, the question, then, comes to be this: Shall one of the great powers of the constitution, a power essential to it, on any just plan or theory of government, a power which has been exercised from the beginning, a power absolutely necessary and indispensable to the proper regulation of the commerce of the country, be now surrendered and abandoned forever? Το this point we have come, sir, after pursuing the "experiment" of the

late administration for five years. And from this point, I am persuaded, the country will move, and move strongly, in one direction or another. We shall either go over to the gentleman from Missouri, and suffer him to embrace us in his gold and silver arms, and hug us to his hard-money breast; or we shall return to the long-tried, well-approved, and constitutional practice of the Government.

As to the employment of the State banks, for the purpose of maintaining the currency, and carrying on the operations of exchange, I certainly never had any confidence in that system, and have none now.

I think the State banks can never furnish a medium for circulation, which shall have universal credit, and be of equal value everywhere.

I think they have no powers, or faculties, which can enable them to restrain excessive issues of paper.

I think their respective spheres of action are so limited, and their currencies so local, that they can never accomplish what is desired in relation to exchanges.

Still, I prefer the employment of State banks to the project before us; because it is less of a project; because it is less dangerous; and, chiefly, because it does not surrender, effectually and in terms, a great power of the constitution.

In every respect, this project is objectionable. It is but another "experiment;" and those who recommend it so zealously, were the authors of the last, and were equally full of confidence and assurance in regard to that.

Who invite us to try this experiment? What voices do we hear raised in its recommendation? Are they not the well-known voices which we heard so often when the late "experiment" was begun? We know of but one accession. The voice of the honorable member from South Carolina is heard, it is true, now mingling with the general strain; and that is all. Where, then, is the ground for confidence in this experiment, more than there was for it in the last?

This scheme, too, is against all our usages, and all our habits. It locks up the revenue, under bolts and bars, from the time of collection to the time of disbursement. Our practice has been otherwise, and it has been a useful practice. In 1833, the Secretary of the Treasury admonished the deposite banks, since they had obtained the custody of the public funds, to accommodate the public, to loan freely, especially to importing merchants. And now, a system is proposed to us, according to which, any use of the public funds, by way of loan or accommodation to the public, is made a criminal offence, and to be prosecuted by indictment! Admirable, admirable consistency!

But the great objection to the measure, that which so much diminishes the importance of all other objections, is its abandonment of the duty of Government. The character of this project is, severance of the Government from the people. This, like the mark of Cain, is branded on its forehead. Government separates itself, not from the banks merely, but from the community. It withdraws its care, it denies its protection, it renounces its own high duties. I am against the project, therefore, in principle and in detail; I am for no new experiments; but I am for a sound currency for the country. And I mean by this, a convertible currency, so far as it consists of paper. I differ, altogether, in this respect, from the gentleman from South Carolina. Mere Government paper, not payable otherwise than by being received for taxes, has no pretence to be called a currency. After all that can be said about it, such paper is mere paper money. It is nothing but bills of credit. It always has been, and always will be, depreciated. Sir, we want specie, and we want paper, of universal credit, and which is convertible into specie at the will of the holder. That system of currency, the experience of the world, and our own experience, have both fully approved.

I maintain, sir, that the people of this country are entitled, at the hand of this Government, to a sound, safe, and uniform currency. If they agree with me, they will themselves say so. They will say, "it is our right; we have enjoyed it forty years; it is practicable, it is necessary to our prosperity, it is the duty of Government to furnish it; we ought to have it, we can have it, and we will have it."

The language of the administration, on the other hand, is, "Good masters, you are mistaken. You have no such right. You are entitled to no such thing from us. The constitution has been misunderstood. We have suddenly found out its true meaning. A new light has flashed upon us. It is no business of ours to furnish a national currency. You cannot have it, and you will not get it."

Mr. President, I have thus stated what I think to be the real question now before the country. I trust myself, cheerfully, to the result. I am willing to abide the test of time, and the ultimate judgment of the people; for it is a sentiment deeply infused into me, it is a conviction which pervades every faculty I possess, that there can be no settled and permanent prosperity to the commerce and business of the country, until the constitutional duty of Government, in regard to the currency, be honestly and faithfully fulfilled.

I shall detain the Senate, sir, with a few remarks only in reply to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. BUCHANAN.]

The gentleman has met the question fairly. He denies that there is any power or duty belonging to this Government, such as I have attempted to maintain. He denies that it is incumbent on Congress to maintain a sound and uniform currency, or to have any thing to do with currency or exchange, beyond the regulation of coin. I am glad to see the honorable member take this distinct ground. All see now what the question is.

The gentleman remarked, that I had abandoned that part of the constitution which is usually relied on as giving Congress power to establish a bank; that is to say, the power to lay and collect taxes. But you will remember, sir, that I was not discussing the power to create a bank, although, certainly, I have no doubt of the power. I was not contending merely for something that should aid in the collection of taxes; I was speaking of the power and duty of providing a sound currency for the whole country; a power and a duty which would both belong to this Government, if another dollar of taxes was never to be collected. Yes, sir, if we knew, this day, that the proceeds of the sales of the public lands would yield revenues equal to all the wants of the Government for a hundred years to come, our want of a currency would be the same, and the duty of Government to provide it the same, as it now is.

The gentleman argues, too, that a power to provide a currency cannot be drawn from the commercial power granted to Congress; because, he says, that power is only to regulate commerce, and to regulate is not to create. This is not quite correct; there are many forms of expression, in our language, especially those in which complex operations are described, in which to regulate, means to cause, or to produce. But, suppose I concede to the gentleman that to regulate, never means to create. What then? Would that prove that Congress could not create a currency, in order thereby to regulate commerce? May it not be necessary to make one thing, in order to regulate another? Let us take the gentleman's own illustration. He says Congress