[AT the session of congress after the election of general
Harrison as president, his opponents being in a majority in both
houses, Mr. Clay submitted the following resolution, to test the
disposition of the Van Buren party to conform to the expression
of public opinion, namely, by repealing the sub-treasury law.
Resolved, that the act entitled ‘an act to provide for the
collection, safe-keeping, transfer, and disbursement of the
public revenues,’ ought to be forthwith repealed, and that the
committee on finance be instructed to report a bill accordingly.
In support of this resolution he addressed the senate as follows.]
MR. Clay said it had never been his purpose, in offering this
resolution, to invite or partake in an argument on the great measure to
which the resolution related, nor was it his purpose now. He would as
lief argue to the convicted criminal, when the rope was round his neck,
and the cart was about to remove from under his body, to persuade him
to escape from the gallows, as to argue now to prove that this measure
of the sub-treasury ought to be abandoned. But Mr. Clay had offered the
proposition which he wished to submit as a resolution, and it was now
due to the senate that he should say why he had presented it in that
shape.
It was the ordinary course in repealing laws, either to move a
resolution for an inquiry by a committee on the subject of repeal,
or else ask leave to bring in a bill to repeal the measure which they
wished to be rid of. But there were occasions when these ordinary forms
might be and ought to be dispensed with. And if they should look for
examples to the only period which bore any analogy to this, that was
the time when Mr. Jefferson came into power, but under circumstances
far different from those attending the accession of the resident of
North Bend. If at that time the alien law had not been limited in
time, but had been made permanent as to its duration, would it not
have been supposed ridiculous to have moved a resolution of inquiry
as to the expediency of repealing that most odious measure? Besides,
the sub-treasury had now been three years and three months the subject
of incessant and reiterated arguments; a term longer than that of the
duration of the last war. Under these circumstances, a discussion of
the measure would be both unnecessary and misapplied. It was sufficient
that the nation now willed and commanded the repeal of the measure,
and that the senators of nineteen states had been instructed to repeal
it. It might, indeed, be contended that the presidential election
had decided this or that measure, when there might well be a dispute
about it. Gentlemen on the other side had said, that such and such
an election had decided this or that measure, one instance of which
related to a bank of the United States, and about them all there might
well have been controversy. But on one point there could not be a
diversity of opinion; and that was, that this nation, by a tremendous
majority, had decided against the sub-treasury measure. And, when the
nation speaks, and wills, and commands, what was to be done? There
was no necessity of the forms of sending to a committee for a slow
process of inquiry; but there was a necessity of doing what the country
required, and to reform what senators had been instructed to reform.
The only question now was, who would act against the will of the
nineteen states; and Mr. Clay thought gentlemen who professed to be
guided by the popular sentiment could have no hesitation to comply with
it now.
Sir, (said Mr. Clay,) I had hoped, for one, that the president of the
United States, when he communicated his late message to congress, would
announce the fact which I have stated, and would have conformed to it
in his suggestions to congress. I would not, indeed, have asked the
president to present himself before congress, and say to the nation
and to congress, ‘I have been wrong all this time, and I now retract
my error.’ Sir, it would have been unmanly to urge him to such a step,
and I would not have required it of him. But we had a right to expect
that the president would have said what was the fact on this subject,
that the nation had decided against this measure, and he ought to have
recommended that the will of the country should be obeyed. But least
of all could we expect that he would recommend, as he did, certain
improvements of this measure, and that senators should concur in
amending a measure against which the nation had decided. And, even
if they should persevere in such a course till March next, they know
perfectly well that this measure cannot be continued after the new
president shall commence his administration.
One word as to the effect of the repeal. What has been said of this
measure? It is said to have been very successful, by the report of the
secretary of the treasury. Sir, I would have been much better pleased
if that document had gone into detail, and had told us what effects had
been produced, and what changes had really taken place, arising out of
this measure. All this he has omitted, and he has only told us that the
measure has so far satisfied all their expectations, and that it has
been most favorable in its operation. But what is its operation? Sir,
I am far from the receivers-general, and wish I was much further; but
what is its operation. Perhaps the honorable senator from New Hampshire,
(Mr. Hubbard,) can tell, who, on all occasions, has stood forth the
ready protector and advocate of the secretary of the treasury, though
I must say it was a most ungrateful return for the secretary of the
treasury to beat him in the late senatorial election. Or, I should be
glad to learn from the honorable chairman of the committee on finance,
(Mr. Wright,) who is one of the instructed against the measure, and let
him give it in detail, how the sub-treasury has acted, and how it is
now working, how it is varying the financial and commercial concerns
of this country. Sir, I can tell myself, though I am remote from its
operations, and I understand there is not the slightest difference now
from what was going on before the fourth of July last, in the operation
of this system. Now, as then, the notes of all the specie-paying
banks are received, and these notes pass into the hands of the
receiver-general. The process is this: a merchant in New York who
has to pay say four hundred dollars, gives two checks, of two hundred
dollars each, but no specie. One of these checks is endorsed ‘specie,’
but the other has no such endorsement; and both these checks are
carried to the bank and credited, not to the government, but to the
receiver-general, on his own private account. That is the action of
the sub-treasury. Both checks are cashed paper, convertible at the will
of the holder into specie, and the one with the indorsement of specie
is no more specie than the one without the indorsement. And such was,
in fact, the usage before the fourth of July last. Prior to that, the
paper of no bank not paying specie was received, and it is so now; and
that is the amount of the whole operation of this measure. Prior to the
fourth of July last, in New York, for example, the money was received
and placed in the banks on private account, and the government had no
control over it. And so it is now. Jesse Hoyt passes it over to Saul
or Paul Allen, and government has no control over it. The result is,
that the whole revenue passes under the care and custody of a private
individual, into some bank. If I am right in this, it is very clear
that the operation of this system is extremely limited, and very
inconsiderable, and must so continue. But I trust, if the account is to
be kept with the banks, that, instead of individuals, it will be opened,
as it formerly always was, with the treasurer of the United States.
I think, then, Mr. President, that no sort of inconvenience can
possibly result from the repeal of this measure. But even if it could,
that is now no consideration for us; but when we have our instructions,
I, at least, shall obey the will of nineteen states.
Forbearing, then, from a general discussion, which has been continued
three years and three months, I am now ready for the vote on the
resolution, though I shall not urge it. If gentlemen want further time
to consider, or for any other purpose, I will be the last to deny them
a request so reasonable as that.
Mr. Clay said, in reply to Mr. Wright, of New York, Mr. President, it
is always pleasant to me when I have the honor to submit a proposition
in a form so acceptable to the honorable senator from New York; and
I am disposed to allow the largest possible accommodation, even on
the point desired by the senator, of postponing this measure till the
senate shall be more full. And, as I am a christian, or endeavor to
be so, I will not return evil for good. Though I recollect, when this
measure was on the verge of passing here, how the senator from New
York would not allow a single day to the senator from Delaware, (Mr.
Clayton,) though he would not then, though earnestly entreated to do so,
delay the question even over night; though all this was denied with the
concurrence of that senator, still I am for returning good for evil,
and I am very happy that better days and more liberal sentiments are
coming. I will concur in any reasonable postponement which the senator
may desire.
But while up, I will notice a few remarks of the senator from New
York. He says, this is a very convenient party now coming into power,
because it is without avowed principles; a coon-skin, log-cabin party.
And before I proceed further on this subject, let me ask, what sort
of a party those must be, who have been driven out of power by a party
whose residence is a log cabin, and whose covering is coon skins? Sir,
there must be something wrong about it, or the defeated party would
have never met so hard a fate from a party which they hold so much in
contempt, and which is so contemptible, if the senator is correct. But
does he in fact want to know my principles, or the principles of my
friends, with respect to this sub-treasury measure? Have not we been
battling with the whole country on our side against this identical
measure? The senator tells us, that the popular voice was in favor
of this measure, and that it was consequently carried in the popular
branch. Sir, I hope he will relieve me of the necessity of looking
into that New Jersey affair, and of discussing the manner in which
that gallant state was stripped of her sacred rights, and her authority
trampled under foot, in a manner degrading to a deliberative assembly,
and disgraceful to the age in which we live. But I will not go into
it. In the progress of the war gentlemen did gain a little, and we were
subject to reverses prior to 1840. But who that regards the truth, and
has been attentive to the progress of events, can rise in his place
and deny that the elections of 1840 repealed the sub-treasury measure?
They were avowedly against it; the object was to put it down, and to
dispense with a measure which had disturbed the community, and deranged
the affairs of the country for more than three long years. It is not
at all like the cases alluded to by the senator under former elections.
The election of 1832, for instance, was construed into an expression of
public opinion against the bank of the United States. But we all know
that general Jackson was then in favor of a bank of the United States.
He so said in his message, and he was then supported on the ground that
he was friendly to the establishment of a bank of the United States.
And I then denied, as I do now, that the inference of gentlemen from
those elections was justly drawn. But now, whether the late election
is favorable to a bank of the United States or to a league of banks,
on one point, and that is as respects this measure, it is utterly
impossible there can be two opinions here.
The honorable senator calls on us to say what other measure is to be
resorted to after that is destroyed; a bank of the United States, or
local banks? Sir, ‘sufficient to the day is the evil thereof.’ We have
nothing now but the sub-treasury to handle. That is an obstacle in the
way of any measure. Let us first remove that, and it will then be time
for the senator from New York to be heard in his inquiries.
But he says the party coming into power are without principle. But
does he not know that they are against the sub-treasury, and in favor
of some sound and safe regulation of the currency? That they are for
economy? That they are against the extravagance of the down-fallen
administration? That retrenchment is their aim? And that they are
opposed to the late fearful usurpations and abuses of executive power?
Sir, the gentleman forgets that the election is over. I assure him,
that it terminated November second, 1840. He seems to think that he
is addressing an assembly in New York, at Poughkeepsie, or elsewhere.
Because general Harrison did not choose to reply to impertinence, the
gentleman charges him and the whole party with want of principles. But,
on all subjects, he was manly and open, and it was on principle that
the people brought him into power. But do gentlemen really mean to
assert that they are without principle? No, sir, no. They know the
principles of the new administration well enough. They know that it
will not denounce bank paper and then give us treasury notes; that
it is against all expedients of this kind; that the administration
will be openly and fairly conducted; that it will not have debts to
a large amount surrounding the government in all its departments――to
the Indians, for state stocks made for political purposes, and reduced
to two thirds of their original value; for the Florida war――literally
covered over with debts, and all the time preaching against debts, and
all the time using treasury notes; and they know, if they do not tell
us how much of debts they have to pay, we, when we have the means of
investigating, will cast up the aggregate to a great amount――an
enormous and mystified amount.
Sir, if it is the will and pleasure of the majority to vote down the
resolution, let them do it manfully, and say that their will, and not
the will of the people shall prevail. But if the will of the people
is to be carried out, there is no reason for delay; the sub-treasury
should be repealed, and forthwith.