ON THE BANK VETO.

IN THE SENATE of the United STATES, AUGUST 19, 1841.

[THE bill which had passed both Houses of Congress, chartering a Bank of the United States, having been returned by Acting President TYLER, with objections to its becoming a law, Mr. CLAY thereupon addressed the Senate as follows:]

MR. PRESIDENT, the bill which forms the present subject of our deliberations had passed both houses of Congress by decisive majorities, and, in conformity with the requirements of the constitution, was presented to the President of the United States for his consideration. He has returned it to the Senate, in which it originated, according to the directions of the constitution, with a message announcing his veto of the bill, and containing his objections to its passage. And the question now to be decided is, shall the bill pass, by the required constitutional majority of two-thirds, the President's objections notwithstanding?

Knowing, sir, but too well that no such majority can be obtained, and that the bill must fall, I would have been rejoiced to have found myself at liberty to abstain from saying one word on this painful occasion. But the President has not allowed me to give a silent vote. I think, with all respect and deference to him, he has not reciprocated the friendly spirit of concession and compromise which animated Congress in the provisions of the bill, and especially in the modification of the sixteenth fundamental condition of the Bank. He has commented, I think, with undeserved severity on that part of the bill; he has used, I am sure unintentionally, harsh, if not reproachful language; and he has made the very concession, which was prompted as a peace-offering, and from friendly considerations, the cause of stronger and more decided disapprobation of the bill. Standing in the relation to that bill which I do, and especially to the exceptionable clause, the duty which I owe to the Senate and to the country, and self-respect, impose upon me the obligation of at least attempting

the vindication of a measure which has met with a fate so unmerited and so unexpected.

On the 4th of April last, the lamented HARRISON, the President of the United States, paid the debt of nature. President Tyler, who, as Vice-President, succeeded to the duties of that office, arrived in the city of Washington on the 6th of that month. He found the whole metropolis wrapped in gloom, every heart filled with sorrow and sadness, every eye streaming with tears, and the surrounding hills yet flinging back the echos of the bells which were tolled on that melancholy occasion. On entering the Presidential mansion he contemplated the pale body of his predecessor stretched before him, and clothed in the black habiliments of death. At that solemn moment I have no doubt that the heart of President Tyler was overflowing with mingled emotions of grief, of patriotism, and of gratitude-above all, of gratitude to that country by a majority of whose suffrages, bestowed at the preceding November, he then stood the most distinguished, the most elevated, the most honored of all living Whigs of the United States.

It was under these circumstances, and in this probable state of mind, that President Tyler, on the 10th day of the same month of April, voluntarily, promulgated an address to the people of the United States. That address was in the nature of a coronation oath, which the Chief of the State, in other countries, and under other forms, takes, upon ascending the throne. It referred to the solemn obligations, and the profound sense of duty, under which the new President entered upon the high trust which had devolved upon him, by the joint acts of the people and of Providence, and it stated the principles and delineated the policy by which he would be governed. in his exalted station. It was emphatically a Whig address, from beginning to end-every inch of it was Whig, and was patriotic. In that address the President, in respect to the subject-matter embraced in the bill, held the following conclusive and emphatic language:

"I shall promptly give my sanction to any constitutional measure which, originating in Congress, shall have for its objeet the restoration of a sound circulating medium, so essentially necessary to give confidenee in all the transactions of life, to secure to industry its just and adequate rewards, and to re-establish the public prosperity. In deciding upon the adaptation of any such measure to the end proposed, as well as its conformity to the constitution, I shall resort to the fathers of the great Republican school for advice and instruction, to be drawn from their sage views of our system of government, and the light of their ever glorious example."

To this clause in the address of the President, I believe but one interpretation was given throughout this whole country, by friend and foe, by Whig and Democrat, and by the presses of both parties. It was, by every man with whom I conversed on the subject at the time of its appearance, or of whom I have since inquired, construed to mean that the President intended to occupy the Madison ground, and to regard the question of the power to establish a National Bank as immovably settled. And I think I may confidently appeal to the Senate, and to the country, to sustain the fact that this was the contemporaneous and unanimous judgment of the public. Reverting back to the period of the promulgation of the address, could any other construction have been given to its language? What is it? "I shall promptly give my sanction to any constitutional measure which, originating in Congress," shall have defined objects in view. He concedes the vital importance of a sound circulating medium to industry and to the public prosperity. He concedes that its origin must be in Congress. And, to prevent any inference from the qualification, which he prefixes to the measure, being interpreted to mean that a United States Bank was unconstitutional, he declares that, in deciding on the adaptation of the measure to the end proposed, and its conformity to the constitution, he will resort to the fathers of the great republican school. And who were they? If the father of his country is to be excluded, are Madison, (the father of the constitution,) Jefferson, Monroe, Gerry, Gallatin, and the long list of republicans who acted with them, not to be regarded as among those fathers? But President Tyler declares that he shall not look to the principles and creed of the republican fathers for advice and instruction, but to the light of their ever glorious EXAMPLE. What exam ple? What other meaning could have been possibly applied to the phrase, than that he intended to refer to what had been done during the administration of Jefferson, Madison and Monroe ?

Entertaining this opinion of the address, I came to Washington, at the commencement of the session, with the most confident and buyoant hopes that the Whigs would be able to carry all their prominent measures, and especially a Bank of the United States, by far that one of the greatest immediate importance. I anticipated nothing but cordial co-operation between the two departments of government; and I reflected with pleasure that I should find, at the head of the Executive branch, a personal and political friend, whom I had long

and intimately known, and highly esteemed. It will not be my fault if our amicable relations should unhappily cease, in consequence of any difference of opinion between us on this occasion. The President has been always perfectly familiar with my opinion on this bank question.

Upon the opening of the session, but especially on the receipt of the plan of a National Bank, as proposed by the Secretary of the Treasury, fears were excited that the President had been misunderstood in his address, and that he had not waived but adhered to his constitutional scruples. Under these circumstances it was hoped that by the indulgence of a mutual spirit of compromise and concession, a Bank, competent to fulfil the expectations and satisfy the wants of the people, might be established. Under the influenc of that spirit, the Senate and the House agreed, first, as to the name of the proposed Bank. I confess, sir, that there was something exceedingly outrec and revolting to my ears in the term "Fiscal Bank," but I thought, "What is there in a name? A rose, by any other name, would smell as sweet." Looking, therefore, rather to the utility of the substantial faculties than to the name of the contemplated institution, we consented to that which was proposed.

2d. As to the place of location of the Bank. Although Washington had passed through my mind as among the cities in which it might be expedient to place the Bank, it was believed to be the least eligible of some four or five other cities. Nevertheless we consented to fix it here.

And lastly, in respect to the branching power, there was not probably a solitary vote, given in either house of Congress, for the bill, that did not greatly prefer the unqualified branching power, as asserted in the charters of the two former Banks of the United States, to the sixteenth fundamental condition, as finally incorporated in this bill. It is perfectly manifest, therefore, that it was not in conformity with the opinion and wish of majorities in Congress, but in a friendly spirit of concession towards the President and his particular friends, that the clause assumed that form. So repugnant was it to some of the best friends of a National Bank in the other House, that they finally voted against the bill because it contained the compromise of the branching power.

It is true that, in presenting the compromise to the Senate, I stated, as was the fact, that I did not know whether it would be acceptable to the President or not; that according to my opinion, each department of the government should act upon its own responsibility, independently of the other; and that I presented the modification of the branching power because it was necessary to ensure the passage of the bill in the Senate, having ascertained that the vote would stand twenty-six against it to twenty-five, if the form of that power which had been reported by the committee were persisted in. But I nevertheless did entertain the most confident hope and expectations that the bill would receive the sanction of the President; and this motive, although not the immediate one, had great weight in the introduction and adoption of the compromise clause. I knew that our friends who would not vote for the bill as reported were actuated, as they avowed, by considerations of union and harmony, growing out of supposed views of the President, and I presumed that he would not fail to feel and appreciate their sacrifices. But I deeply regret that we were mistaken. Notwithstanding all our concessions, made in a genuine and sincere spirit of conciliation, the sanction of the President could not be obtained, and the bill has been returned by him with his objections. And I shall now proceed to consider those objections, with as much brevity as possible, but with the most perfect respect, official and personal towards the Chief Magistrate.

After stating that the power of Congress to establish a National Bank, to operate per se, has been a controverted question from the origin of the government, the President remarks, "Men most justly and deservedly esteemed for their high intellectual endowments, their virtue and their patriotism, have in regard to it, entertained different and conflicting opinions. Congresses have differed. The approval of one President has been followed by the disapproval of another."

From this statement of the case it may be inferred that the President considers the weight of authority, pro and con, to be equal and balanced. But if he intended to make such an array of it—if he intended to say that it was in equilibrium-I most respectfully, but most decidedly, dissent from him. I think the conjoint testimony of history, tradition, and the knowledge of living witnesses prove the contrary. How stands the question as to the opinions of Congresses?