ise which distinguished the sages of the revolution, and the fathers of our Union. If we cannot at once, in justice to interests vested under improvident legislation, make our Government what it ought to be, we can at least take a stand against all new grants of monopolies and exclusive privileges, against any prostitution of our Government to the advancement of the few at the expense of the many, and in favor of compromise and gradual reform in our code of laws and system of political economy."

Here, then, we have the whole creed. Our National Legislature has abandoned the legitimate objects of Government. It has adopted such principles as are embodied in the Bank Charter, and these principles are elsewhere called objectionable, odious, and unconstitutional. And all this has been done because rich men have besought the Government to render them richer, by acts of Congress. It is time to pause in our career. It is time to review these principles. And, if we cannot, at once, MAKE OUR GOVERNMENT WHAT IT OUGHT TO BE, we can, at least, take a stand against new grants of power and privilege.

The plain meaning of all this, is, that our protecting laws are founded in an abandonment of the legitimate objects of government; that this is the great source of our difficulties; that it is time to stop in our career,to review the principles of these laws, and as soon as we can, MAKE OUR GOVERNMENT WHAT IT OUGHT

TO BE.

No one can question, Mr. President, that these paragraphs, from the last official publication of the President, show, that in his opinion, the Tariff, as a system designed for protection, is not only impolitic, but unconstitutional also. They are quite incapable of any other version, or interpretation. They defy all explanation, and all glosses.

Sir, however we may differ from the principles or the policy of the Administration, it would, nevertheless, somewhat satisfy our pride of country, if we could ascribe to it the character of consistency. It would be grateful if we could contemplate the President of the United States as an identical idea. But even this secondary pleasure is denied to us. In looking to the published records of executive opinions, sentiments favorable to protection, and sentiments against protection, either come confusedly before us, at the same moment, or else follow each other in rapid succession, like the shadows of a phantasmagoria.

Having read an extract from the Veto Message, containing the statement of present opinions, allow me to read another

extract from the annual Message of 1830. It will be perceived, that in that Message, both the clear constitutionality of the Tariff laws, and their indispensable policy are maintained in the fullest and strongest manner. The argument, on the constitutional point, is stated with more than common ability; and the policy of the laws is affirmed, in terms importing the deepest and most settled conviction. We hear in this Message nothing of improvident legislation; nothing of the abandonment of the legitimate objects of Government; nothing of the necessity of pausing in our career, and reviewing our principles; nothing of the necessity of changing our Government, till it shall be made what it ought to be.-But let the Message speak for it

self.

"The power to impose duties on imports originally belonged to the several States. The right to adjust those duties with a view to the encouragement of domestic branches of industry is so completely incidental to that power, that it is difficult to suppose the existence of the one without the other. The States have delegated their whole authority over imports to the General Government, without limitation or restriction, saving the very inconsiderable reservation relating to their inspection laws. This authority having thus entirely passed from the States, the right to exercise it for the purpose of protection does not exist in them; and, consequently, if it be not possessed by the General Government, it must be extinct. Our political system would thus present the anomaly of a people stripped of the right to foster their own industry, and to counteract the most selfish and destructive policy which might be adopted by foreign nations. This surely cannot be the case: this indispensable power, thus surrendered by the States, must be within the scope of the authority on the subject expressly delegated to Congress.

"In this conclusion, I am confirmed as well by the opinions of Presidents Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe, who have each repeatedly recommended the exercise of this right under the Constitution, as by the uniform practice of Congress, the continued acquiescence of the States, and the general understanding of the people."

"I am well aware that this is a subject of so much delicacy, on account of the extended interests it involves, as to require that it should be touched with the utmost caution; and that, while an abandonment of the policy in which it originated-a policy coeval with our Government, pursued through successive administrations, is neither to be expected or desired, the

people have a right to demand, and have demanded, that it be so modified as to correct abuses and obviate injustice.'

Mr. President, no one needs to point out inconsistences, plain and striking like these. The Message of 1830 is a well written paper; it proceeded, probably, from the Cabinet proper. Whence the Veto Message of 1832 proceeded, I know not; perhaps from the Cabinet improper.

But, sir, there is an important record of an earlier date than 1830. If, as the President avers, we have been guilty of improvident legislation, what act of Congress is the most striking instance of that improvidence ?-Certainly, it is the act of 1824. The principle of protection, repeatedly recognized before that time, was, by that act, carried to a new and great extent; so new, and so great, that the act was considered as the foundation of the system. That law it was, which conferred on the distinguished citizen, whose nomination for President this meeting has received with so much enthusiasm, the appellation of "Author of the American System." Accordingly, the act of 1824 has been the particular object of attack, in all the warfare waged against the protective policy. If Congress ever abandoned legitimate objects of legislation, in favor of protection, it did so by that law. If any laws, now on the statute book, or which ever were there, show, by their character, as laws of protection, that our Government is not what it ought to be, and that it ought to be altered, and, in the language of the VETO Message, made what it ought to be, the law of 1824 is the very law, which more than any, and more than all others, makes good that assertion. And yet, sir, the President of the United States, then a Senator in Congress, voted for that law! And, though I have not recurred to the journal, my recollection is, that as to some of its provisions, his support was essential to their success. It will be found, I think, that some of its enactments, and those now most loudly complained of, would have failed, but for hist own personal support of them, by his own vote.

After all this, it might have been hoped, that there would be, in 1832, some tolerance of opinion toward those, who cannot think, that improvidence, abandonment of all the legitimate objects of legislation, a desire to gratify the rich, who have besought Congress to make them still richer, and the adoption of principles, unequal, oppressive, and odious, are the true characteristics to be ascribed to the system of protection.

But, sir, it is but a small part of my object to show inconsis tences in Executive opinions. My main purpose is different, and tends to more practical ends. It is, to call the attention of the meeting, and of the People, to the principles, avowed in the late Message, as being the President's present opinions, and proofs of his present purposes, and to the consequences, if they shall be maintained by the country. These principles are there expressed, in language which needs no commentary. They go, with a point blank aim, against the fundamental stone of the Protecting System; that is to say, against the constitutional power of Congress to establish and maintain that system, in whole or in part. The question, therefore, of the Tariffthe question of every Tariff-the question between maintaining our agricultural and manufacturing interests where they now are, and breaking up the entire system, and erasing every vestige of it from the statute book, is a question materially to be affected by the pending election.

The President has exercised his NEGATIVE power, on the law for continuing the Bank Charter. Here, too, he denies both the constitutionality and the policy of an existing law of Congress. It is true, that the law, or a similar one, has been in operation near forty years. Previous Presidents and pre vious Congresses have, all along, sanctioned and upheld it The highest Courts, and, indeed, all the Courts, have pronounced it constitutional. A majority of the people, greater than exists on almost any other question, agrees with all the Presidents, all the Congresses, and all the Courts of law. Yet, against all this weight of authority, the President puts forth his own individual opinion, and has negatived the Bill for continuing the law. Which of the members of his administration, or whether any one of them, concurs in his sentiments, we know not. Some of them, we know, have recently advanced precisely the opposite opinions, and in the strongest manner recommended to Congress the continuation of the Bank Charter. Having, himself, urgently and repeatedly called the attention of Congress to the subject, and his Secretary of the Treasury, who, and all the other Secretaries, as the President's friends say, are but so many pens in his hand, having, at the very session, insisted, in his communication to Congress, both on the constitutionality and necessity of the Bank, the President, nevertheless, saw fit to negative the Bill, passed, as it had been, by

strong majorities in both Houses, and passed, without doubt or question, in compliance with the wishes of a vast majority of the American People.

The question respecting the constitutional power of Congress to establish a Bank, I shall not here discuss. On that, as well as on the general expediency of renewing the Charter, my sentiments have been elsewhere expressed. They are before the public; and the experience of every day confirms me in their truth. All that has been said of the embarrassment and distress, which will be felt from discontinuing the Bank, falls far short of an adequate representation. What was prophecy only two months ago, is already history.

In this part of the country, indeed, we experience this distress and embarrassment only in a mitigated degree. The loans of the Bank are not so highly important, or at least not so absolutely necessary, to the present operations of our commerce; yet we ourselves have a deep interest in the subject, as it is connected with the general currency of the country, and with the cheapness and facility of exchange.

The country, generally speaking, was well satisfied with the Bank. Why not let it alone? No evil had been felt from it in thirty-six years. Why conjure up a troop of fancied mischiefs, as a pretence to put it down? The Message struggles to excite prejudices, from the circumstance that foreigners are stockholders, and on this ground it raises a loud cry against a monied aristocracy. Can any thing, sir, be conceived, more inconsistent than this? Any thing more remote from sound policy, and good statesmanship? In the United States, the rate of interest is high, compared with the rates abroad. In Holland and England, the actual value of money is no more than three, or perhaps three and a half, per cent. In our Atlantic States it is as high as five or six, taking the whole length of the sea board; in the Northwestern States, it is eight or ten, and in the Southwestern ten or twelve. If the introduction, then, of foreign capital be discountenanced and discouraged, the American money lender may fix his own rate, any where from five to twelve per cent. per annum. On the other hand, if the introduction of foreign capital be countenanced, and encouraged, its effect is to keep down the rate of interest, and to bring the value of money in the United States so much the nearer to its value in older and richer countries. Every dollar brought from abroad, and put into the mass of active capital at home,