they not ordered you, whenever your powers are doubtful, defective, or limited, to apply to them for the remedy? Have they not explicitly provided the manner in which such remedy shall be applied? They have not permitted you to cut and carve for yourselves. A power is given to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises. You shall have collectors and excise officers as incidental to their execution; you are to provide the safest deposites for them within your constitutional reach; you must preserve them under your perpetual control, by contract; you will be allowed stationary, store room, and house rent, with every other essential accommodation; but as we have reserved the power of creating banks to the States or to ourselves, you can claim no constitutional power over them, unless within the district over which we have given you exclusive legislation: and this power you are invested with, merely as Legislators for that district, and not in your capacity of Representatives of the States, respectively, or of the People.

But you conclude that the question of constitutionality is settled by precedent, acquiesced in by all the constituted authorities for twenty years. Such a conclusion facts will not justify. It is a most dangerous doctrine; it is an abandonment of the State sovereignties, who have for twenty years practically opposed and denied such doctrine. More than three-fourths of the States have, for a large portion of that period, been in the practice of establishing banks within their respective State sovereignties. If they had divested themselves of this sovereignty, by a delegation of such power to the United States, they would never have dared to exercise such a flagrant ursupation of power. Congress could not, without violating their oaths, have permitted this usurpation of their delegated authorities. Upon all other occasions they have been sufficiently jealous of the encroachments of State authorities. Can it be imagined that they would have witnessed such a daring and dangerous innovation, if such powers had been unequivocally delegated? On a subject of such magnitude, no one can believe such improbable suppositions. But it is all important to the peace, safety, and happiness of the Union, that this subject be fully and fairly met; that it may be set for ever at rest. It is a subject on which we cannot suppose the constitution was intentionally silent; provided the power was intended to be given by the States. It is one in the exercise of which collision would most frequently occur. The power would therefore be expressly given, expressly reserved; or an agreement made to share it mutually. If any such agreement exists, it must, from the necessity of the case, be specific, express, and accurately defined and limited. No such compact exists in the constitution of the United States. Upon this subject there is therefore only one alternative. The power is either expressly given or reserved. It is of too imperious a nature to be sought for by implication, inclusion, or as an incidental means to carry any other power into effect. It has never been contended that any such power is expressly given by the constitution. If it had ever been parted with, it was all-important that it should have been parted with expressly. If it has been parted with, it can be shown. If it can be shown, it requires no casuistry to support it. Casuistry may involve and obscure-it can but seldom enlighten its subject. The sole power given to the United States, to coin money, regulate commerce, or make war, has never been questioned. Upon these subjects no State has ever shown a disposition to interfere, either with the powers, or the means necessary to carry these powers into effect. No similar delegation of power on the subject of banking can be shown. It is therefore expressly reserved. For if it has not been so reserved, the individual States have, most of them, been in the daily usurpation of a power which did not of right belong to them, which of right belonged to another, for nearly twenty years. But, if they have been in the exercise of a legitimate authority, then have the United States been exercising a dangerous and arbitrary usurpation of power, never delegated, expressly reserved, and practically denied and opposed by the States, during the whole of that period. Those who advocate the power of the United States over this subject must yield the sovereignty of the individual States. They must show this yielding of sovereignty, otherwise their power is a usurpation. They have not shown

any such delegation of sovereignty by the States. They never can shew it, in this constitutional instrument. It is therein expressly reserved: for, "the powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the People." Obliged thus to abandon my constitutional position, I endeavored to rally my scattered forces, on the extensive field of expediency. I expatiated on the immense advantages resulting from a common circulating medium, the facilities afforded thereby to our fiscal and commercial relations, and the stimulus given to industry by a large foreign capital. My constituent suddenly arrested my progress, by observing, that it appeared idle to consume our time in castle-building, while we possessed neither the power nor the materials to erect them: for, when the constitutional authority is denied, no expediency can justify such an assumption of power. Such an assumption would, if acquiesced in, break down all the mounds raised by the People for their protection against the lawless encroachments of power. It would remove those landmarks, set up by them for their guide; and, whenever such encroachments would be attempted, exposed them a defenceless prey to their enemies. I will, however, offer a few observations on the subject of expediency, and hope to shew you that, even on that ground, you are exposed to defeat. As to the fiscal operations of the country, they may be readily and safely conducted through less dangerous channels-by a differentmodification of means, within constitutional reach. A large foreign capital is equally susceptible of being injuriously as of being beneficially employed. We had better remain unemployed, than use means to promote industry which may only place us more completely at the discretion of foreign Powers, by giving them the discretion of, and command over, our industry. It cannot be questioned, that the large foreign capital in our country has been highly instrumental in deluging our country with unnecessary and extravagant articles of foreign growth and manufacture. These foreign gewgaws have nearly destroyed our economical and simple habits, as an agricultural People, and rendered us tributary to those foreign Powers, whose meretricious arts have inveigled us into such prodigal consumption of their commodities. The same funds have been employed to retard our progress in manufacturing for ourselves, lest we should become in reality independent, and disobedient to our task-masters; whose artful policy has nearly banished gold and silver, by the introduction of their fictitious capital, that they might thus disarm our energies-if the expiring embers of personal liberty or national independence should again rekindle, and nerve our arms and animate our hearts against every insidious or perfidious encroachment upon the dearest rights of freemen.

Again I endeavored to arrest the glowing progress of my constituent, by directing his attention to the numerous memorials on our table; painting, in fascinating colors, the beneficial operations of this institution on our country, and its Government, and shading the back ground of the picture in sombre colors, with the ruin which a refusal to re-charter the bank of the United States must bring down on the devoted heads of our State banks, and our commercial cities, and which threatens to extend its desolations to every description of our citizens.

What, my friend, exclaimed my constituent, have these basilisks so fascinated you, by their legerdemain artifices, as to deprive you of the evidence of your senses? Have you not, from the same description of people, numerous representations which boast a redundant capital? So redundant as to induce them to vest their superfluity of wealth in speculations upon British manufactures, and other articles of British commerce, by anticipated remittances? Is it unreasonable to trace these contradictory statements to the same impure source? May not this redundant wealth consist of national or mercantile deposites, in the national bank, granted to such special friends as trade in British commodities, to favor their immense importations, and destroy our infant manufactures, that they may shackle our commerce in foreign fetters? May not the fictitious capital of the same institution be employed to coerce American citizens the friends of American prosperity and independence-into a re

newal of their favorite bank charter? To this rational solution of memorials, so contradictory in their nature, I could offer no satisfactory reply-I gave up the cause as hopeless, on American ground. As an American citizen, I can never yield my assent to a measure, so apparently pregnant with mischief to the rights and liberties of my constituents. I cannot thus betray the confidence reposed in me as a Representative of the American People, or violate the oath which I have taken to support the constitution of the United States.

JANUARY 24, 1811.

The House resumed the consideration of the motion to postpone, indefinitely, the further consideration of the said bill. And the question being taken, it passed in the Those who voted in the affirmative, are,

affirmative—ayes 65, noes 64.

Messrs. Rhea, of Penn.
Rhea, of Tenn.
Richards,

Ringgold,

Anderson,

Goodwyn,

Bacon,

Gray,

Bard,

Holland,

Barry,

Johnson,

Roane,

Basset,

Jones,

Sage,

Sawyer,

[There were absent on this vote eleven members, viz:

Of whom Messrs. Burwell, Crist, Cook, Livermoore, Lyon, Ross, and Whitman, were absent from the city, and Messrs. Clopton, Cobb, Root, and Tracy, were absent from indisposition and other causes.]

On this day, Messrs. RHEA, of Tennessee, SMILIE, MACON, and EPPES, spoke in favor of the postponement, and Messrs. QUINCY, STANLEY, and MCKEE, against it; whose speeches, so far as they are found reported, follow in the order above named.

Mr. RHEA, (of Tennessee.) If, in the course of this debate, observations had not been made which appear to deprive the constitution of the United States of its innate virtue and honor, to destroy its beauty and simplicity, and to transform it into a deformed and distorted something, the debate on this bill to renew the charter of the Bank of the United States would have progressed to the end, undisturbed by any intervention of mine. If a train of reasoning be adopted, that tends to disturb this constitution, and to give to it a construction and interpretation that it will not bear, it then becomes a duty to state opinions respecting it, and to vindicate the true intent and express understanding thereof.

The constitution was solemnly and deliberately made, by wise men, who composed the convention, in the name of the People of the United States, and it was solemnly and deliberately ratified, by conventions of the States, respectively. It is simple, and easy to be understood, by any one who, knowing the objects and ends for which it was ordained, will candidly examine it. A defence of the constitution, is a defence of the great and good men who made it what it is: for, if the constitution be dark, of obscure intent, and dubious meaning, it is not what it ought to have been. If it be dark, obscure, and dubious, if it be capable of inconsistent or contrary interpretation, the conventions of the ratifying States have not examined it with that careful attention which it required. Vain and empty surmises will evaporate, the characters of the men who made it being considered; the scrutinizing inquiries of the seve ral ratifying conventions being contemplated, and by a candid examination, without prejudice of the constitution itself.

The constitution is a compact between the individual States and the United States. It is the great charter and bill of rights, delegated and given by the several States composing the Union, to the United States; it contains rights, powers, and principles, to be acted on by the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty; and we, the People of the United States," have ordained and established it the constitution of the United States of America.

The rights, powers, and principles, enumerated in the constitution, are void of elasticity; they are firm, fixed, and unbending; they will not yield to discretion, on various assumed constructions; unchangeable in their nature, intent, and object, they are mutable only by the constitutional authorities.

"The enumeration, in the constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny, or disparage others, retained by the People."-Article eleventh of the amendments to the constitution. This article manifests, that all the rights delegated to the United States are enumerated in the constitution, and the enumerated rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage, to bring into disrepute, or diminish, other rights, retained by the People; and to that end it is absolutely necessary that the rights delegated be expressly and distinctly enumerated, otherwise it would be impossible to ascertain and distinguish the rights delegated to the United States, and the rights reserved to the People. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the con

stitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the People."-Article twelfth, amendments to the constitution. By this article, it is manifest that a power, not distinctly and expressly delegated to the United States, by the constitution, nor expressly and distinctly prohibited by it to the States, is reserved to the States, respectively, or to the People. These amendatory articles exclude, and prohibit an assumption of discretionary powers; of constructive powers; and of all powers and rights not expressly and distinctly enumerated in the constitution. By the word "power," or the word "right," is understood a fundamental principle of the constitution; the Congress cannot change, alter, vary, or destroy it; it assumes form when it is clothed with a legislative act of the Congress, and ordered to operate.

It may be proper to notice some observations, made in the course of this debate, which appeared to evidence a disposition to show that the Congress was vested with discretionary, or constructive powers, in matter of principle. It has been intimated that Congress had not power to disband an army, if the power was not assumed. If the constitution had been well considered, this and other similar intimations would have been omitted. An army is raised in consequence of a law, bottomed on the clause in the eighth section of the said article, which empowers Congress to raise and support armies. By the eighth section, the Congress is empowered to "make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces." make an appropriation of money to support an army, for a longer term than And the Congress is prohibited to two years. The Congress, acting on these powers, will disband an army. A Jaw may be made to expire by limitation in itself; if not, the Congress will make a law to repeal it. A law may be enacted to repeal the law whereby an army is raised, and then that army will be disbanded. The writ of habeas corpus is a prerogative writ of the United States, and was in use previous to the existence of the constitution; it is not prohibited by the constitution to the People; it is a duty of the judiciary to issue writs of habeas corpus, proper cause being shewn. The privilege of that writ does not depend on the clause in the ninth section of the first article of the constitution; that clause only contains an express condition or reservation, that the Congress shall not suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, except when, in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it. Writs of habeas corpus being issued by the judiciary, a law suspending the privilege of that writ is a law regulating the proceedings of the judiciary, and is bottomed on the powers vested in the Congress, by force of the third article of the constitution. No bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed." This is an express prohibition, and requires no illustration. shall be granted by the United States." This, also, is an express prohibition. "No title of nobility The Congress hath power rules for the government and regulation thereof; and, "to define and punish to provide and maintain a navy," and to make piracies and felonies, committed on the high seas, and offences against the laws of nations;" and consequently, to make rules and regulations for the government of seamen of every description. It has been asked, by what delegated power does Congress make laws to prevent settlers on lands, the Indian title whereof hath not been extinguished? If the gentleman who made the inquiry had considered that land, the Indian title whereof was not extinguished, remained, by treaty, for the use of the Indian tribe, until the extinguishment of title, and that, a treaty being a supreme law of the land, the Congress is empowered to give it complete effect, the inquiry, probably, would not have been made.

It is urged, that a discretionary power is necessary to carry the enumerat · ed powers into effect. If the discretionary power alluded to intends only a power to legislate on the delegated right or power, in a proper time and adequate manner, this is no more than a power to make laws to carry the delegated power into execution; but, if, by "discretionary power," is intended a power to assume, at discretion, a right, or principle, not enumerated in the constitution, under pretence of carrying a delegated power into execution, it