JAN. 8, 1834.]

Removal of the Deposites.

[SENATE.

on the same day, and a circular addressed to the other but when and how to obey the orders of a Secretary in departments for their direction.

regard to it, and discharge them for neglect. But that Whence does the Secretary draw his belief, that mo- doctrine is unsound. It is the essence of despotism; the ney in the hands of an agent, for which that agent has substitution of a single will in place of the will of the given bond and security, and for the disbursement and whole; and whenever it shall be approved by the Amerisafe keeping of which he is accountable, is public money can people, they will be slaves, who may sing peans to which he has a right to control, and take the responsibility their despot over their chains, but they will not thereby for it away from the agent? Where did he obtain this render them less strong, nor, in the end, less galling. authority? Is it in virtue of his high office? He has, by But, Mr. President, the Secretary has not been satisfied this order, placed all the disbursing officers under the with his orders for the disposition of the future revenue control and check-not of the Treasurer-not of the of the nation; but he has drawn money out of the treaComptroller or Auditor-not of the whole Treasury De-sury, and used it without regard to legal provisions. He partment-but of himself and the President alone. He has given drafts, not signed by the Comptroller of the has also thrown the hazard of loss on the Government. Treasury, to the Union Bank of Maryland, for two or If the disbursing officers obey the order, and the money shall be lost, the loss must fall upon the treasury, or gross and shameful injustice be done to them and their sureties. Suppose a case-and it may be fact and history more than supposition—that there are several large disbursing officers in Washington, who have kept their money in the Patriotic Bank, and they have been compelled to transfer it to the Bank of the Metropolis, and it should be lost, either in whole or in part, by the failure or depreciation of the latter; what must be the consequence? The release of the officers to the extent of the failure. No honest Government would compel them or their sureties to suffer: it must fall on the treasury. They are not left to judge of their own interests and responsibility, but required to place their money in a bank which the law did not create for that purpose, and which the law does not control for that purpose. Nor has the Secretary bound these banks, by his agreement, to receive or take care of this money. It is neither "entered to the credit of the Treasurer," nor "deposited on account of the United States."--(p. 39.) He has looked neither to the responsibility of the bank nor the agents. Is there not, then, absurdity, illegality, if not gross oppression, in the act? He seems to have no limit to assumed power over the public treasure, and no guide but the disposition to pour every thing into the lap of the favored banks.

three hundred thousand dollars; one to the Girard Bank for half a million; another to the Bank of America; another to the Manhattan Bank; and another to the Mechanics' Bank; each for the same sum, amounting, in all, to more than two millions of dollars. How much more may be in the same situation we are not informed. Senators will find in the appendix to the pamphlet on their table (pages 43, 44, and 45) a correspondence explanatory of this matter. When these drafts were made and issued we do not precisely know. The Secretary, in his "reasons," did not condescend to inform us respecting them. He concealed the facts. I considered it, when his reasons were read to the Senate, and I saw the correspondence of the Treasurer and cashier-I consider it now-as a disingenuous concealment of an important fact, not merely useful, but indis. pensable, in forming an opinion in regard to his conduct. He gave orders to draw more than two millions of dollars out of the treasury, and yet does not inform Congress that he had so done. He plays a game of hazard with your money, and does not think it of sufficient importance to apprize you of it, or recollect that respect for you and your control over the treasury demand an explanation. We have, however, learned, without the aid of the Secretary, from another source, that these drafts were made, or at least some of them, and in the hands of the cashiers, about a month before the 5th November last. As to their character, we are informed, not through the Secretary, but by the letters of the Treasurer of the United States to the cashier of the Bank of the United States, that they were not of the usual kind; they were issued by direction of the Secretary of the Treasury, to be used in the event of certain contingencies; upon failure of which they were to be returned to the treasury, and cancelled."

But he here also seems to have violated positive law. By the fourth section of the act of the 3d March, 1809, paymasters, pursers, and other agents, are directed, when practicable, to keep the money in their hands, "in some incorporated bank, to be designated for the purpose by the President of the United States," &c. The President alone has the power of designation, and they are to obey his order, and his only, when he shall give one. Here And, in the recent report of the Secretary, of the 30th the Secretary declares that he himself had designated December, in answer to a call made upon him, which has some banks, and it is not known whether the President been read, but which, being in the hands of the printer, was even informed which they were, and that he was pro- we have had no opportunity of examining, it is stated ceeding to select others; and the order is that the agents that "he has transferred money, in some instances, from shall make their deposites in such as he had selected, and the Bank of the United States to the selected banks, in in whichsoever he might select. It was an order to place order to enable them to defend the community against the their money wherever the Secretary might please, and to unwarrantable attempts of the Bank of the United States change it when he pleased. Was this a performance of to produce a state of general embarrassment and distress." the duty of the President, under the law? He may per- They were then drafts, signed by the Secretary and form his duty through the instrumentality of his subordi- Treasurer, for the money legally deposited in the Bank of nates in the departments; but if he is commanded to do the United States, to the amount of two millions three an act, does he obey the law when he authorizes a subor-hundred thousand dollars, placed in the hands of the dinate to do as he pleases; approves what he has done, cashiers of several banks, to be used by them, if they saw without knowing what it is; and sanctions, beforehand, fit. They were to be used on certain contingencies. whatever he may do in relation to it? Is there no longer any authority in law? Is every thing swallowed up in executive discretion? I admit, sir, that this and a hundred other laws in our statute book are folly and arrant nonsense, if the doctrine recently contended for be truethat the President, in virtue of his authority to see the laws executed, has a right to look to all cases of discretion in executive officers, to command them to obey his will, and to dismiss them if they do not obey it. He might as well, under that doctrine, and without the aid of law, not only order agents where and how to keep their money,

What contingencies? They were not explained to us. Who was to judge of those contingencies-the Secretary? No; the banks. What security had the Secretary that they should not be misused? None. They were in the hands of the cashiers. Payment might have been demanded, and the money squandered; or, the cashiers escaped, and no possible claim could have been sustained against the banks under the agreement, or against the securities on the cashiers' bonds. The banks could not be answerable until the money was received by them and credited on their books; the conditions of the cashiers'

SENATE.]

Removal of the Deposites.

[JAN. 8, 1834.

bonds embrace no such trust. The Secretary has drawn, tersigned by the Comptroller, recorded by the Register, and authorized to be drawn, out of the treasury, between and not otherwise." These drafts are direct violations of two and three millions of money, and placed it, without both the constitution and the law. They were to take security, upon the contingency of certain individuals, be- money out of the treasury; they were not in consequence lieving that the Bank of the United States improperly of appropriations made by law; they were not to pay debts pressed the community, (a fact on which he was not to or to satisfy appropriations or claims; they were not signdecide,) to be used, if, in the management of the businessed by the Comptroller, nor in the forms of the law. confided to them, they should think that they were It is true, sir, that a boast has been made, and not now pressed, or be unable to relieve the community. What a for the first time, that new guards have been thrown precious guardian over the treasury of the country! What around the treasury in these days of reform, (or whatever respect has he shown for the provisions of law!

These two millions and more were held by the cashiers of those banks to support their credit. It was a loan of so much of the public money for that specific purpose. Can any man make more or less of it? It was to pay no debt. It was to meet no claim against the Government. It was to do nothing which the laws of the Union had directed. It was a loan, to be used or not, at discretion of the parties, to sustain their credit, and enable them to transact their business.

else it suits the partisan to call it,) and that the treasury is now more secure, on this account, than in former times. What are these new forms--new guards? It is said that a change has been made in the warrants; that now all the proper officers sign them; and that they are sent with the name of the Treasurer; so that no fraud can be committed. A short explanation will show the fallacy and decep. tion of this boasting. The act establishing the treasury, as we have seen, prescribes the mode and manner in which the officers are to sign, to draw money out of the treasury. Has the Secretary of the Treasury a right to loan two From the moment of the passage of that law to the preor ten millions of dollars for such a purpose? Are Sena- sent, as I believe, the form of warrants has been substantors prepared to say that such a power is in his hands, and tially the same--unvaried in substance, and in strict conto approve its exercise--and such an exercise-without formity with the law; containing the name of the payee, the pretence or affectation of security? Suppose one of sum, appropriation, &c.; signed by the Secretary, counthese cashiers had, during the month, drawn the money tersigned by the Comptroller, recorded by the Register, and escaped; the Bank of the United States would have and signed by the Treasurer. No alteration has taken been discharged for that amount, and even the cashier's place in these respects. bond would not have been broken. Your money would have been cast upon the waves, with no hope of its being drawn to the shore again. Your resort might, perhaps, have been to the bond of the Treasurer of the United States. The money was still on his books as belonging to the Government, as he tells you, and he was responsible for it until legally discharged; but you would have speedily found a credit given. It might have been done with much less disregard of law than has been exhibited.

If such acts be approved, you have no guard upon your treasury. The President or the Secretary may permit a a cashier to draw from it millions upon millions of dollars, and, if he escape, your only remedy is like that against the deserted soldier-to mark him "run."

After the officers, with the Treasurer, had signed them, either the warrants themselves were delivered to the claimants, or sent for them to the place of payment; or, in place of the warrants, checks of the Treasurer were sent.

To the branch bank here the warrants usually went, and were returned to the treasury on weekly or other settlements; to places at a distance the checks or warrants were sent as was found most convenient. In both cases, however, the Treasurer either kept the warrants, or they were returned to him, on settlement with the paying bank, and he kept them as his vouchers. The only difference, of which I am aware, that has been made, is that, in 1829, the Treasurer was directed always to send the warrants; and thus they are in the custody, for a time, not of the But, sir, in what an aspect does this present the Secre- Treasurer, whose vouchers they are, but of the bank tary of the Treasury before us! He first performs an act, which pays them. It is only a difference as to the party highly questionable, to use the mildest phrase, in ordering who is to hold the voucher, until a settlement has been the accruing moneys to be deposited elsewhere than Con- made. But as to security, there is no difference. Nor gress directed, and then performs this illegal act. To was it a matter of the slightest consequence, so long as the guard against the natural consequences resulting from his Bank of the United States, created by and responsible unown improper conduct, he comes before us and apologizes der the law, received, and paid, and kept the warrants. for this act, by telling us that he had done something else Now, I ask, where is the extraordinary merit of this luminwhich rendered this unavoidable. ous invention? Four years ago we heard it sounded, from Maine to Georgia, as evidence of skill, and paternal care over the treasury, and watchfulness against fraud; another reason for deep personal devotion to a man who knew no more of the matter, at the time, than you or I. Of such stuff, sir, is popularity sometimes made; and such are the trifles, lighter than air, imposed on partisan credulity!

If such things can be done under our present laws with impunity, if Congress and the people of this Union have been so utterly negligent as to leave the public treasury thus exposed, it is time that the evil was repaired, and stronger guards thrown around it. But, in my apprehension, Congress and the people have not thus neglected their duty. There are guards enough to prevent a Secretary from thus thrusting his hands into the treasury, and scattering it to the winds. Not the want of law, but the violation of law, has produced these results.

The drafts of which I have spoken were a violation of the constitution and the law, and were given in despite of these warrants, not only in their original, but their amended shape. These new and boasted guards against petty frauds were insufficient to protect your treasury against the more stupendous inroad of executive-discretion. They might prevent the filching of a few dollars, but could not restrain the unlocking of the treasury, when millions were to be subtracted.

The argument of the Senator from Kentucky was conclusive and irresistible, to my mind, on this point; and I do not wish to detain the Senate by a feebler and more tedious exposition. The constitution, in section 9, article 1, has solemnly declared that "no money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations These drafts also violated the agreement between the made by law." The law organizing the Treasury De- bank and the Treasury Department, made by Mr. Crawpartment, on the 2d September, 1789, immediately after ford, in September, 1819, by which a notice of thirty, sixour Government went into operation, in the 4th section, ty, or one hundred and twenty days was to be given, when declares that the Treasurer shall receive and keep the money was to be transferred to different places-an agreemoneys of the United States, and disburse the same, upon ment which has not, I believe, been insisted on by the warrants drawn by the Secretary of the Treasury, coun-bank, in ordinary cases. They were secret drafts- a fact

JAN. 8, 1834.]

Removal of the Deposites.

[SENATE.

which this officer had not the courage, or, if he had the protect the community from the pressure of the Bank of courage, had not the candor, to state to Congress. They the United States. Now, if it was proper to draw them were to be paid upon sight, instantaneously, whenever the holders chose. A demand for more than two millions might have been made upon the bank at any moment; and, if not instantaneously paid, it must have been dishonored, and the pure and generous purpose avowed by the agent accomplished. And now, sir, the bank is charged with dishonesty for guarding against it. It knew--it could scarcely fail to know--from the plainest indications, that drafts were out; but their amount, and when and where they would be presented, was not known, and could not be, unless the Secretary, or one of his subordinates, had given the information. It was concealed, because the ob ject required concealment. And when, under such a state of facts, the bank prepared to meet the blow of its covert enemy, fall when and where it would, it is accused by the Secretary of misconduct, and a violation of its charter. The accusation is worthy of the maker of contingent secret drafts. Sir, if this conduct be sustained, you have no guard upon your treasury. Your President and Secretary may take from your vaults whatever they please, and when they please, and dispose of it where they please, and you have no remedy. I repeat the inquiry-are Senators prepared to justify the act?

for that object; and if the bank has continued its oppressions, as is hourly alleged, why were they not all used? Does no more pressure on the community exist? Has the bank done no more evil than that which could be repaired by two millions of dollars? Is the Secretary sincere in his exhibition of the conduct of the bank? Has he power to use the public money to resist it? And does he use only a part, when he might arrest wrong and oppression by using the whole? Was that his object? Credat Appella! Before I pass from this subject, I must be permitted to remark that the time which the Secretary chose draws none of my respect towards him or his act. He knew at the time that he could not complete it before the meeting of Congress. He is even now, while we are deliberating, pursuing his object, and completing his arrangements. He knew that Congress would not approve the removal. For three years the question respecting the bank has been agitated in various forms; and, at the last session, this very subject was brought before Congress on the controlling recommendation of the President, and when his political friends were in a large majority; and Congress refused to yield to his wishes, and declared the deposites safe. Yet, in less than six months afterwards, the SecreThe apology made for this violation of law and duty is, tary spurned their opinion, and did the act; and now that they were transfer drafts. What, Mr. President, is a comes to Congress to approve the contempt which he has transfer draft? It is this, and nothing more: a direction heaped upon them, and expects fawning for the kick from the department to the bank to send a particular sum which he has given them! Sir, why did he thus scorn of public money from one place to another, where the the opinion and will of Congress? It was, sir, that anoGovernment needs it. If it has money in Philadelphia, which ther, and, if possible, more signal act of scorn for the leit wants in Lexington or Norfolk, it is a direction to send gislative power might be exhibited to the world. The depoit to Lexington or Norfolk, that the checks or warrants of sites could not be removed by the joint action of the Exethe department may be paid there. It is a draft simply cutive and Legislature, without a majority of the latter in designed to change the position of the money, but not to favor of the removal. But if that was made by the auchange the custody of the money. In its change, and in thority of the President or Secretary alone, they could its new location, it remains under the same custody, upon not be restored; as a single word, veto, would prevent the responsibility of the bank, and so continues, until it is that majority from accomplishing their wishes. Twodrawn from its new location, in regular warrants from the thirds would then be required; and this, the word, the department, for the payment of debts. If lost in the wishes of the President, and the force of party, would transfer, in passing from one position to another, or after prevent. The act was therefore done; done before the the transfer, and before it is paid out, it is the loss, not of meeting of Congress, for the sole purpose of preventing the Government, but of the bank. The transfer itself is Congress, the majority of Congress, the Representatives the act of the bank. It may be directed, but it is not and of the people, from exercising their judgment and powers cannot be performed either by the Secretary or by the in relation to this question, and the management and conTreasurer. They may, as we have seen, draw money out trol of the public treasure. It needs no development of of the bank, and, after it is drawn out, use it as they please, the guilty purposes of guilty agents to see that this was and violate law while they do it; but, under the charter, the governing motive in selecting the time-for the haste the bank must make the transfer. It is a gross misnomer with which the removal was made. In sixty-six days, to call these drafts transfers. Who ever before heard of Congress, authorized by the constitution and laws to dea transfer draft to change money from one side of a street cide this matter, would have been in session; and the act, to another? from one end of a town to another? to take I repeat it, was then performed to prevent the action of money from one bank to loan to another to sustain its cre- Congress. Sir, the power of Congress has been scorned— dit, or enable it to do even the high and meritorious act of disregarded; and, through them, the people, whom they protecting the community from oppression? Drawing mo- represent, abused. A trick, a cunning device, has been ney out of the bank, or treasury, for any purpose, is no resorted to, to cheat the legislative power of the country transfer. The bank loses its possession. It is a payment of its rights. Those whom the people appointed guardby it-a payment of money out of the treasury; and thenians of the public treasure have been defrauded of their the responsibility for loss falls, not on the bank, but on the constitutional authority. The Secretary knew that the sesGovernment. A transfer can only be made while the same sion of Congress was approaching. Why, then, did he do legal responsibility exists before, at, and after the transfer. this act? Why does he now insult Congress by continuing These contingent drafts were payments of so much for the thus to act, while we are here to attend to our constitutional Government; and these payments were not made in the duties? Search the records of history, from the earliest forms, nor according to the requirements of law. Sir, times to the present, and you can find no act of lower they may be called by any name that our contingent Sec- cunning, or haughtier scorn, by any usurper, towards the retary may select; but he ought not, by giving wrong legislative body. Who, before this, has ever dared thus names, to be permitted to deceive the public. He has vi- to contemn the power which the people had, by their sololated the plain requirements of law, and should be held emn charters, bestowed on their Representatives? None, responsible for it. The law is ample to guard the treasu-sir, none. If it be the will of the people thus to surrenry; it requires only to be faithfully administered. It is der their own powers in the hands of their constitutional proper here to remark, that all these contingent drafts Representatives, and to justify the trespass upon them, so were not used; a part was returned to the treasury. They were made, it is said, to sustain the selected banks, and

be it: I will not be accessory to the justification. If the charter of the bank were to expire in fifty days, it would

SENATE.]

Removal of the Deposites.

be due to the relative powers of our Government, and the honor of Congress, to order their immediate restoration. On Thursday, Mr. S. continued his remarks as follows:

[JAN. 8, 1834.

ignorant of the true state of facts. But the truth has been told; the people and Congress have been deceived. While praises were bestowed, and we were ordered to believe them, that department was insolvent. And while Congress was in session, borrowed money, without the permission or knowledge of Congress, and in disregard of law and duty.

Mr. President: I yesterday attempted to present my views of the acts performed by the Secretary of the Treasury, and of the laws and principles applicable to them; On the 28th of April, 1833, $50,000 were borrowed of and made some remarks on the time selected by the Sec- the Western Bank of Philadelphia. On the 5th of June, retary as calculated to prevent and avoid the action of $50,000 more of the Bank of Maryland. On the 25th of Congress. The purposes of the Executive have been con- October last, at the time of the loan by the Secretary of firmed by subsequent acis. Within a week, while we are the Treasury to the banks, on the 1st November, immedeliberating on this question, we are told that orders diately after the Secretary's loan, $50,000 of the Commonhave been issued forbidding the bank, or some of the wealth Bank of Boston; and, on the 31st December last, branches, to pay the pensions; and transferring this ser- four weeks after Congress was in session, $100,000 of the vice to others. It was originally assigned to the commis- Manhattan Bank. sioners of loans and the agents for paying pensions, by the Some of these, perhaps all, are among the favored act of the 4th of August, 1790. It was afterwards trans- banks; some of them held the contingent drafts, and others ferred, by law, to the Bank of the United States, by the were in correspondence with the agent of the treasury, act of the 3d of March, 1817. By this transfer, the Gov- when these loans were made by the Postmaster General. ernment was relieved from an annual expense of not less The time, on which the Secretary dwells so emphatically, than forty thousand dollars. The bank is now forbidden is no longer to be wondered at. It corresponds well with to perform the duty; and the Executive, of his own au- the wants of the Government, if it does not with the rights thority, or his subordinate, has constituted the selected of the bank and the interests of the community. Are banks commissioners of loans and agents for this pur- these things to be tolerated and approved? Sir, the fraud pose. The law expressly commanded what is now for- of this whole matter is stupendous and appalling; the disbidden. Your statute is repealed, and official duties im- regard of law, and contempt of the legislative branch of posed by executive mandate. I ask for his legal authority. our Government, intolerable. Are Senators prepared to I demand to know if there is to be no limit to these tres- approve it all by their votes? passes upon the legislative power? An attempt to transfer these duties was made three or four years ago, resisted, retracted; but is now repeated in more offensive form, as the natural result of the previous misconduct in removing the deposites. I have stated that a large amount of money had been I must be permitted here to remark, that, in my examidrawn from the treasury, and distributed among the fa- nation of these principles and reasons, I have not permitvorite banks. Surely, at the time when the Secretary ted myself to regard the question before the Senate as an was loaning the public money so freely, all the depart-issue between the President and the Bank of the United ments of the Government ought to have been full-handed, States. If the President on one side, and the bank on the without need of pecuniary aid. Yet it so happens that other, have formed an issue, let them try it. It does not one of those departments, without authority of law, has become the Senate to try it for them, or to become a party borrowed, upon six per cent. interest, more than four hun- to it. We are not to look at the consequences upon an dred thousand dollars. By a report of the Postmaster individual, whether he holds the office of President or not. General, just laid upon our tables, we are informed that To the incumbent of that office, who is speedily to pass he has borrowed, since the 28th of December, 1832, from power, it can avail little, personally, unless he acts $350,000, which is unpaid; and $50,000 more, which has under strong passions and prejudices, and seeks the perbeen paid; and overdrawn to an unascertained amount, petuation of official power in the hands of favorite partibut supposed, by estimate, $50,000 more; and we all sans. We are not to look at the consequences to this bank, know that contracts with the department are unsatisfied, except so far as its rights may have been assailed by a viuto a great extent. The time when these loans were made, lation of the terms of its charter. It will soon cease to and the banks by which they were made, are worthy of exist, if it be not the will of Congress that its existence observation, as explanatory of some parts of the conduct be prolonged for the purposes of the Government--and of the Secretary.

Having looked at the acts of the Secretary, it becomes necessary to examine the principles which he avows, and the reasons he has given for their justification. It is due to him, and much more to ourselves and our institutions, that this examination should be full and rigid.

that will be a question of magnitude and difficulty enough One hundred thousand dollars were loaned by the Man- for the day when its decision may be required. But we hattan Bank, between 28th of December and 1st of April, are to look to the effects upon the Government and instiwhile Congress was in session, and immediately after its tutions of the country, and the rights and interests of the adjournment. For four years preceding this event, Con- people. We are investigating principles and reasons imgress and the country had been regularly assured, even mensely more important than the interests or wishes of any by the President himself, that this department was in a President and of the bank combined--of a magnitude deepflourishing condition, and managed with great economy ly affecting the future well-being of a great nation. The and skill, by a most faithful officer; and those who doubt-supremacy of the law, the sacredness of the constitution, ed or denied were denounced in no very measured terms. the rights of the people, are matters concerned in the At the opening of this session, in that very month of De- issue before us; and we are to look to it that these do not cember, when a part of this money was borrowed, the suffer by the misconduct or the malignant passions of President assured Congress, from the report of the Post-rulers.

master General, which he transmitted, "that that de- I propose to admit, for the present at least, that the partment continued to extend its usefulness, without im- reasons offered by the Secretary are sincere, and that he pairing its resources, or lessening the accommodations acted upon his own judgment, not by the command of his which it affords in the secure and rapid transportation of superior. It requires, indeed, some faith to make the the mail." Sir, have Congress been fairly and honestly admission, when we reflect upon the argument of the dealt with on this subject? Has not imposition been prac- Senator from Kentucky, and add to it the language which tised? I do not say intentional, so far as the President is we find in the letter of Mr. Duane, of the 23d September, concerned. He may have been, and probably was, utterly that he was to consider himself directed to act on the

JAN. 8, 1834.]

Removal of the Deposiles.

[SENATE.

responsibility of the President," and that, if he would the Legislature; and the Secretary can have no duty in stand by him, it would be "the happiest day of his life." regard to it, but to superintend its collection in the preIt requires still more faith when we compare the paper scribed mode, and to see that the will of Congress is obeyed read to the cabinet with the reasons of the Secretary. The and executed. language, the ideas, the facts, the reasoning, all indicate There are other duties mentioned in this section; but a common origin--the dictation one head-be that head they can have no connexion with the power claimed by whose it may, whether the President's, the Secretary's, the Secretary. From what branch, then, of his official the agent's, or some unknown person. Without stopping duties does the power arise? From none. It is as purely to inquire either into the similarity or parentage of these a legislative power as any which ingenuity can devise; vested documents, or into the feeling which could have produced in Congress, of a high character, and with which no inthis state of happiness, on accomplishing such a purpose, ferior officer can interfere, except so far as he may be after such a life of usefulness as he has led, and the acqui- expressly directed. Such direction is not pretended. All sition of so much glory as we are assured that he has won, his general authority exists in that law. His office has I take the act as the Secretary's, and the reasons as his neither been enlarged nor contracted from that day to this. justification. If he has acted incorrectly, the mandate of He seems to have forgotten that he is the creature of the power can furnish no apology. law, with such capacities as it gave; that he is not the The Secretary assumes, without proof, certain principles department, and has not all the power vested in the deas true. If they are false and unsound, no system of hon- partment, but that there are other officers with their pow est logic can deduce safe conclusions from them. He ers and duties. One of these is the Treasurer, and to him creates some difficulty in their examination, by a confusion this very duty of safe-keeping is expressly assigned. The and alternation in the use of the terms "Secretary of the fourth section requires the Treasurer to "receive and keep" Treasury," and "Treasury Department," as if they con- the public money, and compels him to give bond in veyed the same meaning. There is great distinction be- $150,000 that he will receive and keep it safely. Like tween them. The Treasury Department is a creature of all other officers and agents who hold public money, he, the law and the constitution, and consists of several officers, and not the Secretary, is bound with sureties, "to take whose separate and respective duties are prescribed; of care that the public money is deposited in safe-keeping, whom the Secretary is but one, and with no more unde- and in the hands of faithful agents, and in convenient fined and unlimited powers than the others. Each has his places, ready to be applied according to the wants of the sphere of authority and service; and neither can properly Government;" which wants may be indicated to him interfere with the rest, except in the mode and to the through the Secretary. Place is a necessary part of keepextent which the law has established. ing; if it fails in safety, the officer-the Treasurer-must answer for it, unless the law directs the place, and then the officer is not responsible.

In page 2 of the report, it is affirmed that the Treasury Department being intrusted with the administration of the finances of the country, it was always the duty of The history of the department corresponds with this the Secretary, in the absence of any legislative provision view. Before any place was designated by Congress, the on the subject, to take care that the public money was Treasurer kept the money where he saw fit, and was deposited in safe-keeping, in the hands of faithful agents, answerable. When the Bank of the United States was and in convenient places, ready to be applied according to chartered, in 1817, Congress required that it should be the wants of the Government." The principle, thus an- deposited in it; and for its safety, while there, the Treasurer nounced, in its length and breadth, is unsound. If it be is not bound to answer. But if, from any cause, it be true that the Treasury Department is intrusted with the taken from thence, without the order of Congress where administration of the finances, does it follow that the Sec- it shall be kept, the rights, and duties, and responsibilities retary alone is to perform the high functions thus claimed, of the Treasurer revive; and in' their exercise he cannot in the absence of legal provision?—that he is to discharge be controlled by the Secretary, who may, indeed, direct important legislative powers and duties? Certainly not, him that the Government needs the money in any given unless the law creating him authorizes it. He doubtless place, (as Baltimore, for instance,) but for its transfer and means that the power claimed is a necessary emanation keeping there, until used for the Government, he must from the nature of his office. "It pre-existed the bank himself respond. An order from the Secretary to place charter, and was reserved by it. If Congress do not legis- it in any given situation, or to let it out of the place prelate respecting the places of deposite and safe-keeping, he scribed by Congress, can be no protection to him against must supply their defects." With all the respect which the forfeiture of his bond. The contingent and other I can feel for the Secretary, the position seems to me to be drafts which removed the money were not legal authority. absurd, and an assumption of undelegated authority. The If the money be lost, his bond is broken. Such, if he had act establishing the department, and creating his office, consulted them, would, I am confident, have been the gives him no such power. [Here Mr. S. read the first and advice of the two Secretaries who preceded the present second sections of the act of 2d September, 1789; the one. first establishing the department, the second creating the office of Secretary, who was to be deemed head of the department.]

The power in dispute is a legislative power-purely legislative. Congress has the right to say who shall exercise it; and, having granted it to the Treasurer, it is a usurDoes this claimed power arise from the first duty en- pation by the Secretary, for which no reasons can apolojoined, “to digest and prepare plans for the improvement gize, no necessity excuse. He has assumed the very and management of the revenue, and for the support of essence of legislation--to deal with, to control, to manage public credit?" He is but to digest and prepare the plans, the purse of the nation. And even if it be proved that not to execute them. They are to be sanctioned by Con- the power was executive, it would not relieve him. An gress, and their execution to be directed by Congress--the executive power, to be exercised, must be conferred; if high legislative power which is to determine respecting not conferred on him, he has no right to assume it. But, the revenue. sir, the Secretary proceeds to tell us, in substance, that From the second--"To prepare and report estimates of this power was reserved by the bank charter, without limitthe public revenue, and the public expenditures?" The ation or restriction; that Congress cannot interfere with same comment applies to it. the subject until he has acted; that, in his action, he is From the third--"To superintend the collection of the to judge of the general interest and convenience of the revenue?" The revenue itself, and the mode of its col-people; that, although the money is safe in the Bank of lection, must, of necessity, be directed and prescribed by the United States, yet, as it has violated its charter, it was