For every such man goes to market, at all times, with the advantage over him who has less means within his control. And, where-I ask again-where in our system of government, do you find ground for the idea, that the legislature may part with any portion of the sovereignty of the people, in consideration of money, in that sense in which you part with a house or a farm, in consideration of money paid to you?

The fact then, Mr. Chairman, that the treasury of the commonwealth has been replenished by virtue of this act of assembly, by which the charter was granted to the United States Bank of Pennsylvania, does not, in any sense, make this a consideration of a contract. It surely cannot be so regarded. It would be derogatory to the legislature of the commonwealth, and subversive of the constitution of the land, and of the liberties of the people. It is not a contract, furthermore, because it admits of no remedy as a contract.

Suppose that the legislature of Pennsylvania should, during the present session-and I wish they would do so, as well on grounds of general state policy, as to bring the question to a test-suppose, I say, that they should pass a law repealing this act; or, suppose they should deprive this institution of certain privileges. In what court could it cite the state to appear? What court has been provided for the purpose of asserting the rights of a contract, such as this is said to be? Where is the remedy? And, where is the court of justice in which the commonwealth would be answerable to this corporation?

But, sir, there is another reason why it is not a contract.

[Mr. W. here read an extract from Judge Story, on the subject of contracts, sustaining him in the argument he had advanced.]

It would, continued Mr. W., be a fraud in the legislature, to grant any

other kind of charter.

For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, as well as for many other reasons which refer to the subject, I say, that this act of assembly is a law, and not a contract; and, of consequence, that it does not fall within the meaning or spirit of that provision in the constitution of the United States, which declares," that no state shall pass any law impairing the obligation of contracts."

Surely, there is no constitutional provision, which forbids a legislature to repeal a law. If the charter of the United States Bank of Pennsyl vania is a law, it is undoubtedly repealable. And, why shall we not say so? It does not come, I repeat, within the meaning or spirit of the con

stitution.

At the adoption of the federal constitution, the word "contract" was understood to mean precisely what it is understood to mean at this day. It is a word of universal import and employment; no word in our whole language is better understood-and none, as I apprehend, less capable of misconstruction.

Thus much, Mr. Chairman, in relation to the character of this act of assembly.

But, sir, I am aware that many of the courts, as well federal as state, have decided that a charter, granted by the legislature, is in the nature of

VOL. VIII.

a contract, where it is accepted; and, for the purposes of this argument, I do not object to admit that such an act of assembly is, according to these decisions, a contract.

The question, then, is, whether it falls within the scope of that clause in the federal constitution, which forbids a state to pass any law impairing the obligation of contracts. It has been asserted, that it does come within the scope of that provision; and I suppose that the resolution rests on the idea, that this being a contract, the legislatue cannot, without a violation of the constitution of the United States, pass a law impairing its obligations.

Probably, there is not, in the entire constitution of the United States, a more wise provision, than that which secures private rights, under ordinary contracts, between man and man. But it is denied that this act of assembly is a contract embraced by the provision of the federal constitution, to which I have adverted. I know not how better to defend this position, than by considering briefly, the principles on which our govern

ment is founded.

The just objects of all civil governments, are the protection and happiness of all the subjects. For these ends were governments instituted, and in this country, the better to attain these ends, we make our constitutions and laws to depend on the will of the people. The force of laws consist in the fact, that the people have assented to them-that they sprang from them and are according to their will, and since the people cannot be presumed to assent to laws which have not a tendency to promote their welfare, the objects of all laws are the happiness or welfare of the mass of the people-the many-the great body-a majority of the citizens.

But, to promote and accomplish these objects, legislation must change, from time to time, with the ever varying circumstances of the people. Laws which were wise and salutary, when they were enacted, become, by events, unsuitable to the people. and must give way to such as may be thought better adapted to the great ends and aims of popular government-the welfare and happiness of the mass of the people. With such views and for such purposes, was our complex system of government adopted.

Here, were separate communities, self-existing and perfectly independent of all superiors-states that were perfectly sovereign within their own limits, and capable of passing and repealing laws, as their best interests should from time to time require, and better calculated than any other power on earth to regulate and control all their internal affairs. But, for their protection from exterior dangers, the people of these separate and independent states, confederate and establish a new power-a Unionto which they impart enough of their own rights and powers, to make it effectual for their protection.

The state government is a beautiful structure. It is situated, however, on the naked beach. The Union is the dyke to fence out the flood." It was mainly to protect themselves from the inundation, to "fence out the flood," that the' people gave up any thing to the Union-it was not at all for the purpose of disabling themselves from regulating their domestic

interests, and controling their internal relations, that they came into the compact. No-into this compact, like those which formed them into separate communities, the people came for their own better protection and security, and the same objects precisely were in view, in adopting the constitution of the Union, which are sought for by every constitution and law to which the people actually, or by implication, assent. In this instrument they are to be understood as aiming at the attainment of these objects--their own security, welfare and happiness, and since these objects forbid fixed and irrepealable legislation, and require wholesome changes of laws, can it be presumed that the people mean to give up the power to repeal any law they might pass? Is it true that the people of Pennsylqania, in assenting to the constitution of the United States, parted with their right to repeal a law establishing a base born bank? Whatever may be the public necessity-however sternly the welfare of the many may demand the repeal-how cruel and oppressive soever this monster may become, we the people of Pennsylvania may not move hand or foot to remove the scourge, and to abate the nuisance, because we have so stipulated in the bond! Having in view all the while our own good, we have forsaken the right to promote it by repealing such a law, we have given it away, unasked and uncalled for, and when painful experience drives us to search for it, we find that it is gone-not torn from us by a conquering enemy, but given away freely and foolishly. I do not believe it. Such is not the right construction of the federal constitution.

Mr. DUNLOP—Mr. W. having yielded the floor-moved that the committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again.

Mr. AGNEW asked for the yeas and nays on this motion, and they were ordered.

The question was then taken on the motion of Mr. DUNLOP, and decided in the negative, by the following vote, viz:

YEAS-Messr. Ayres. Banks, Barclay, Bedford, Bell, Bonham, Brown, of Philadelphia, Clarke, of Indiana, Crain, Cummin, Curll, Dillinger, Doran, Dunlop, Fleming, Foulkrod, Fry, Fuller, Gamble, Gearhart, Gilmore, Grenell, Hastings, Helffenstein, Houpt, Hyde, Ingersoll, Keim, Krebs, Maclay, Magee, Martin, M'Cahen, M'Dowell, Nevin, Read, Ritter, Scheetz, Sellers, Seltzer Shellito, Smith, of Columbia, Sturdevant, Taggart, Weaver, Woodward-46.

NAYS-Messrs. Agnew, Baldwin, Barndollar, Barnitz, Biddle, Bigelow, Brown, of Northampton, Chambers, Chandler, of Philadelphia, Chauncey, Clarke, of Beaver. Clark, of Dauphin, Cleavinger, Cline, Cochran, Cope, Cox, Crawford, Crum, Cunningham, Darlington, Darrah, Denny, Dickey, Dickerson, Forward, Harris, Hayhurst, Hays, Henderson, of Dauphin, Hiester, Hopkinson, Jenks, Kennedy, Kerr, Konigmacher, Mann, M'Call, M'Sherry, Meredith, Merkel, Miller, Montgomery, Overfield, Pennypacker, Pollock, Porter, of Lancaster, Porter, of Northampton, Purviance, Reigart, Royer, Russell, Saeger, Scott, Serrill, Sill, Smyth, of Centre, Snively, Sterigere, Stevens, Thomas, Todd, Weidman, Young, Sergeant, President-65.

Mr. WOODWARD, resumed as follows:

Sir, the states agreed, in ratifying the constitution of the United States, to surrender some portion of their power, and they assented, undoubtedly, to some limitations on their original and inherent powers of legislaThese restrictions are specified and set down in the constitution, and any man may read and understand them, and among them is this pro

tion.

vision, that no state shall pass a law impairing the obligation of contracts. I have said that the word contract is a word of universal use, and perfectly well understood, and that it was used and understood in the same sense by the framers of the constitution, that it is by us. Be it that a bank charter is a contract, what had the constitution of the United States to do with bank charters? Did the convention which refused to give congress the power to grant one, take away from the states the power of repealing theirs? No, sir, they dreamed not of an immunity such as this to bank corporations, when they said, wisely, that states should not annul or impair contracts. They looked to a preservation of the rule of sound morality in the dealings between man and man, and made the good faith of such dealings sacred.

This was another security for the welfare of the people, and it taught them that if their own representatives should forget their duties, or unwittingly pass a law, which would destroy confidence between men, their act should be void. It furnished, and will continue to furnish, ground for popular confidence in our governments, and in that feeling, sir, consists our great security, for if the people see and feel that their government protects them in all their dealings, they will protect their government in all its perils.

But the states, in agreeing to some restrictions upon their own powers, reserved to themselves some rights which were to be inviolable. Such are the rights to alter and change their government, to regulate the admin istration of justice, to establish internal improvements, and common schools, and especially to regulate the paper currency of the states. Banking, in all its principles, operations and results, is exclusively a state system, and if there is any subject in reference to which state legislation is untrammelled, it is this; and if there is any subject more than all others which requires vigilant caution and frequent legislation, it is this. We have spent weeks here in this body, endeavoring to devise some new checks and limitations on the legislative power over this subject, which should operate to the public advantage-the public mind is bent anxiously to it, and we all feel our responsibility to do something which may prevent future evils, if it cannot remedy past ones.

I

What I am now doing, is in performance of my duty to my constituents on this subject-feebly and imperfectly enough, to be sure, but the duty must be performed, whether the committee will hear me or not. am sorry for the impatience of the committee, and sorry that I have been driven into this discussion at a late hour, unexpectedly, and without any of the materials around me, which I had laid away for this discussion, and to this circumstance they must attribute somewhat of my tediousness. I do not, however, mean to weary them long.

The right to regulate and control the paper currency of the state, I take it, is complete and absolute, and any construction of the federal constitution, which abridges, restrains or denies this right, must be vicious, because it would be subversive of the great ends of human government. The United States Bank has a capital of $35,000,000 and power to issue paper money without limit. It is claimed for it, that it can supply the people with a currency, and its admirers call it the "Regulator" of the currency. In the pride and plentitude of its power, it has, through its President, boasted that

it can destroy the other banks of the state, and this I believe. Now, sir, is there any thing in the constitution of the United States to prevent the people, through their representatives, from regulating this "Regulator"? May they not restrain its power, or curtail its proportions, when their highest interests demand it? What, sir, is banking a state right, and the regulation of paper currency a state duty, and yet the state is not to question the action of this bank of banks? Is it to be left to go on in its career of mischief and injury, however it may crush the public interests, and however the million and a half of freemen in this state may wish it to be restrained-mocking the popular fears and defying the legislative arm?

Our govern

Sir, if it is so to be, some better reason must be found out than that the framers of the federal constitution wrote it down that a state may not impair contracts. If the state erected such an institution, so powerful and so inviolable, and endowed it with an indefeasible existence, there, in that act, was the violation of the great first contract which brought men into society. It impaired not, for it dissolved utterly, the obligations of this primal bond, and violated, aye, annihilated the vested rights of a nation of freemen to govern themselves. Such an institution, as it is now claimed this bank is, cannot be erected without an overthrow of all our constitutions, and it is vain to appeal to them for its defence. ment may be taken down and put up anew-whatever we call ancient and permanent in our civil institutions may be changed, but we may not touch this bank. Sir, it cannot be so. The only legitimate existence which that institution can claim, is, and must be, by the assent of the popular will, directed to the attainment of the popular good, and if it came thus into existence, then all reason and law authorize the popular will, still pursuing the public good, to put it out of existence. I do not advocate any wild, ill defined or licentious power. Even that which I believe exists in our legislature, I would have prudently exercised. I would not repeal the United States Bank charter wantonly, nor in such manner as to take away one dollar of the property which individuals have invested there, and I would only repeal it on some great and pressing emergency, when the public interests demanded it, unless indeed it should become necessary to repeal it in order to vindicate the right to do so. But rather than have one of our highest rights struck out of existence, and rather than see the marble pile down Chestnut street become a monument of one atom of departed freedom, I would exercise the repealing power at once, without waiting for occasion. If the struggle is to be brought on between corporate and popular power by the denial of all responsibility on the part of this bank to the people, let it come. It may as well be determined now as ever. But if it is desirable to avoid such a struggle, let the truth be recorded, that the people may alter or repeal its charter, and there let the contest end, until public necessity demand the exercise of the admitted power.

On the subject of the constitutional provision, which is supposed to be the shield of this bank, I beg leave to refer gentlemen to the forty-fourth number of the Federalist, written by James Madison, in which he calls this provision "a bulwark in favor of private rights," and speaks of it as a restraint on that kind of legislation that disturbs the private affairs of society. Not a word falls from this great expositor which indicates an opinion that that provision was ever to restrain a state from taking all such measures in behalf of their currency, and internal commerce, as they should deem wise