Virginians at a Constitutional Convention in 1829 had discussed the declining value
of Negro slaves and whether they should abolish slavery,
and in 1831 and 1832 the Virginia legislature continued to debate this issue.
On 16 January 1832 Thomas Jefferson Randolph introduced
an emancipation plan in the Virginia House of Delegates.
He warned that slavery could cause the dissolution of the Union
and that northern armies with black soldiers might invade Virginia and arm the slaves.
Thus he proposed that they should free all slaves as they became adults
and ship them to Africa; but his plan was defeated.
Thomas Dew defended slavery and its economy, and in 1832 he published
his influential A Review of the Debates in the Legislature of 1831 and 1832.
He claimed that slavery benefited blacks and made whites more responsible and benevolent.
After Congressman William Stanberry accused Sam Houston
of rigging an Indian deal, Houston clubbed him on April 13.
The District of Columbia fined Houston $500, but Jackson remitted the fine.
On May 9 the US Senate debated whether to repeal the postage on all newspapers,
but Jacksonian senators defeated it 23-22.
In 1832 the Democratic Party held its convention May 21-23
and adopted the two-thirds rule for nomination that lasted a century.
Also the states had to vote by the unit rule giving all their votes to one candidate.
Jackson believed he might die in his second term and
decided to make Van Buren his successor instead of Calhoun.
The convention accepted the incumbent Jackson and Van Buren for Vice President.
The Democrats’ convention had 334 delegates from 23 states, but the Anti-Mason’s
and the National Republicans each had no more than 168 delegates from 18 states.
Nicholas Biddle since 1823 had been President of the Bank of the United States.
Jackson blamed congressmen for accepting cash from Biddle and corporations,
and he accused Biddle of helping John Quincy Adams in the
election of 1824 by giving out “golden favors in 25 states.”
Henry Clay advised Biddle that Jackson might dissolve the Bank after the 1832 election;
but if he did so before it, then Clay could defeat him.
Although it had been chartered to 1836, Biddle agreed
to ask for renewal of the charter in January 1832.
They also had the support of the high-paid lawyer Daniel Webster
and George McDuffie of South Carolina.
National Republicans introduced its renewal on 6 January 1832.
On February 23 the House of Representatives authorized
a committee to investigate the US Bank.
The Senate passed the bill 28-20 on June 11 and the House 107-85 on July 3
with help from northern Democrats.
In February 1832 Martin Van Buren had learned that his nomination had been rejected.
President Jackson arranged for the Democratic National Convention to be in May,
and they nominated for Vice President Van Buren who returned to Washington in July
to support Jackson in the United States Bank controversy.
Van Buren returned to Washington on July 8, and he met with President Jackson
who told him that the Bank “is trying to kill me, but I will kill it.”1
Jackson agreed with Jefferson that the U. S. Bank was unconstitutional,
and on July 10 he vetoed the renewal of its charter and sent a message to the Senate.
This veto is historically significant because it was the first time a president
used it without giving the reason why the bill was unconstitutional.
Although it was a private bank with directors and about 4,000 stockholders,
the U. S. Bank could use public funds free of interest and act commercially.
The Bank had issued about 40% of all bank notes in circulation,
and its $35 million in capital was over twice the annual federal expenditures.
Jackson was concerned that foreigners had $8,405,500 worth of shares
and that westerners, who had much wealth in land with little stock in the Bank,
owed much to Eastern and foreign investors.
The U. S. Bank also controlled 25 branch offices.
Yet Biddle made sure that it held a specie (coins) reserve worth half the value
of issued notes compared to less than a quarter held by other banks.
Biddle knew he had the power to destroy other banks, but he acted conservatively.
Some believed the United States Bank was a monopolistic fourth branch of government,
and Biddle did give retainers and loans to editors and elected officials of both parties.
Jackson appealed to people who agreed with his hard-money position
and did not want paper currency that was often used to exploit them.
Numerous banks issued their own notes, and far from the banks they were discounted.
They were easy to counterfeit.
People resented that the government allowed banks charters
that gave them the privilege of creating currency.
Without the United States Bank the local banks could be even more irresponsible.
Jackson’s veto message was drafted and revised by Kendall with advice
from Roger B. Taney, A. J. Donelson, and Levi Woodbury, and on 10 July 1832
President Jackson sent this “Veto Message” to the United States Senate:
The bill “to modify and continue” the act entitled
“An act to incorporate the subscribers to the Bank of the
United States” was presented to me on the 4th July instant.
Having considered it with that solemn regard to the
principles of the Constitution which the day was
calculated to inspire, and come to the conclusion that
it ought not to become a law, I herewith return it to
the Senate, in which it originated, with my objections.
A bank of the United States is in many respects
convenient for the Government and useful to the people.
Entertaining this opinion, and deeply impressed with the
belief that some of the powers and privileges possessed
by the existing bank are unauthorized by the Constitution,
subversive of the rights of the States, and dangerous
to the liberties of the people, I felt it my duty at an early
period of my Administration to call the attention of Congress
to the practicability of organizing an institution combining
all its advantages and obviating these objections.
I sincerely regret that in the act before me I can perceive
none of those modifications of the bank charter which are
necessary, in my opinion, to make it compatible with justice,
with sound policy, or with the Constitution of our country.
The present corporate body, denominated the president,
directors, and company of the Bank of the United States,
will have existed at the time this act
is intended to take effect twenty years.
It enjoys an exclusive privilege of banking under the
authority of the General Government, a monopoly of
its favor and support, and as a necessary consequence,
almost a monopoly of the foreign and domestic exchange.
The powers, privileges, and favors bestowed upon it
in the original charter, by increasing the value of the
stock far above its par value, operated as a gratuity
of many millions to the stockholders.
An apology may be found for the failure to guard
against this result in the consideration that the effect
of the original act of incorporation could not be
certainly foreseen at the time of its passage.
The act before me proposes another gratuity to
the holders of the same stock, and in many cases
to the same men, of at least seven millions more.
This donation finds no apology in any
uncertainty as to the effect of the act.
On all hands it is conceded that its passage will
increase at least 20 or 30 percent more the market
price of the stock, subject to the payment of the
annuity of $200,000 per year secured by the act,
thus adding in a moment one-fourth to its par value.
It is not our own citizens only who are to
receive the bounty of our Government.
More than eight millions of the stock
of this bank are held by foreigners.
By this act the American Republic proposes virtually
to make them a present of some millions of dollars.
For these gratuities to foreigners and to some of our own
opulent citizens the act secures no equivalent whatever.
They are the certain gains of the present stockholders
under the operation of this act, after making
full allowance for the payment of the bonus.
Every monopoly and all exclusive privileges
are granted at the expense of the public,
which ought to receive a fair equivalent.
The many millions which this act proposes to bestow
on the stockholders of the existing bank must come directly
or indirectly out of the earnings of the American people.
It is due to them, therefore, if their Government
sell monopolies and exclusive privileges,
that they should at least exact for them
as much as they are worth in open market.
The value of the monopoly in this case
may be correctly ascertained.
The twenty-eight millions of stock would probably be at
an advance of 50 percent, and command in market at least
$42,000,000, subject to the payment of the present bonus.
The present value of the monopoly, therefore,
is $17,000,000, and this the act proposes to
sell for three millions, payable in fifteen
annual installments of $200,000 each.
It is not conceivable how the present stockholders can
have any claim to the special favor of the Government.
The present corporation has enjoyed its monopoly
during the period stipulated in the original contract.
If we must have such a corporation, why should not the
Government sell out the whole stock and thus secure to
the people the full market value of the privileges granted?
Why should not Congress create and sell twenty-eight
millions of stock, incorporating the purchasers with
all the powers and privileges secured in this act and
putting the premium upon the sales into the Treasury?
But this act does not permit competition
in the purchase of this monopoly.
It seems to be predicated on the erroneous idea that
the present stockholders have a prescriptive right
not only to the favor but to the bounty of Government.
It appears that more than a fourth part of the stock
is held by foreigners and the residue is held by a few
hundred of our own citizens, chiefly of the richest class.
For their benefit does this act exclude the whole American
people from competition in the purchase of this monopoly
and dispose of it for many millions less than it is worth.
This seems the less excusable because some of our citizens
not now stockholders petitioned that the door of competition
might be opened, and offered to take a charter on terms
much more favorable to the Government and country.
But this proposition, although made by men
whose aggregate wealth is believed to be equal
to all the private stock in the existing bank,
has been set aside, and the bounty of our Government
is proposed to be again bestowed on the few who have
been fortunate enough to secure the stock and at this
moment wield the power of the existing institution.
I cannot perceive the justice or policy of this course.
If our Government must sell monopolies, it would seem
to be its duty to take nothing less than their full value,
and if gratuities must be made once in fifteen or
twenty years let them not be bestowed on the subjects
of a foreign government nor upon a designated
and favored class of men in our own country.
It is but justice and good policy, as far as the
nature of the case will admit, to confine our favors
to our own fellow citizens, and let each in his turn
enjoy an opportunity to profit by our bounty.
In the bearings of the act before me upon these points
I find ample reasons why it should not become a law.
It has been urged as an argument in favor of
re-chartering the present bank that the calling in its
loans will produce great embarrassment and distress.
The time allowed to close its concerns is ample,
and if it has been well managed its pressure will be light,
and heavy only in case its management has been bad.
If, therefore, it shall produce distress, the fault will
be its own, and it would furnish a reason against
renewing a power which has been so obviously abused.
But will there ever be a time when
this reason will be less powerful?
To acknowledge its force is to admit that the bank
ought to be perpetual, and as a consequence the
present stockholders and those inheriting their rights as
successors be established a privileged order, clothed both
with great political power and enjoying immense pecuniary
advantages from their connection with the Government.
The modifications of the existing charter proposed
by this act are not such, in my view, as make it consistent
with the rights of the States or the liberties of the people.
The qualification of the right of the bank to hold real estate,
the limitation of its power to establish branches,
and the power reserved to Congress to forbid the
circulation of small notes are restrictions
comparatively of little value or importance.
All the objectionable principles of the existing
corporation, and most of its odious features,
are retained without alleviation.
The fourth section provides “that the notes or bills of
the said corporation, although the same be, on the faces
thereof, respectively made payable at one place only,
shall nevertheless be received by the said corporation
at the bank or at any of the offices of discount and
deposit thereof if tendered in liquidation or payment
of any balance or balances due to said corporation
or to such office of discount and deposit
from any other incorporated bank.”
This provision secures to the State banks a
legal privilege in the Bank of the United States
which is withheld from all private citizens.
If a State bank in Philadelphia owe the Bank of the
United States and have notes issued by the St. Louis branch,
it can pay the debt with those notes, but if a merchant,
mechanic, or other private citizen be in like circumstances
he cannot by law pay his debt with those notes,
but must sell them at a discount
or send them to St. Louis to be cashed.
This boon conceded to the State banks, though not unjust
in itself, is most odious because it does not measure out
equal justice to the high and the low, the rich and the poor.
To the extent of its practical effect it is a bond of union
among the banking establishments of the nation, erecting
them into an interest separate from that of the people,
and its necessary tendency is to unite the Bank of the
United States and the State banks in any measure which
may be thought conducive to their common interest.
The ninth section of the act recognizes principles of
worse tendency than any provision of the present charter.
It enacts that “the cashier of the bank shall annually
report to the Secretary of the Treasury the names of
all stockholders who are not resident citizens of the
United States, and on the application of the treasurer
of any State shall make out and transmit to such treasurer
a list of stockholders residing in or citizens of such State,
with the amount of stock owned by each.”
Although this provision, taken in connection with a decision
of the Supreme Court, surrenders, by its silence, the right
of the States to tax the banking institutions created by this
corporation under the name of branches throughout the
Union, it is evidently intended to be construed as a
concession of their right to tax that portion of the stock
which may be held by their own citizens and residents.
In this light, if the act becomes a law, it will be
understood by the States, who will probably
proceed to levy a tax equal to that paid upon
the stock of banks incorporated by themselves.
In some States that tax is now 1 percent, either
on the capital or on the shares, and that may be
assumed as the amount which all citizen or resident
stockholders would be taxed under the operation of this act.
As it is only the stock held in the States and not that
employed within them which would be subject to taxation,
and as the names of foreign stockholders are not to be
reported to the treasurers of the States, it is obvious that
the stock held by them will be exempt from this burden.
Their annual profits will therefore be 1 percent more than
the citizen stockholders, and as the annual dividends
of the bank may be safely estimated at 7 per cent,
the stock will be worth 10 or 15 per cent more to
foreigners than to citizens of the United States.
To appreciate the effects which this state of things
will produce, we must take a brief review of the operations
and present condition of the Bank of the United States.
By documents submitted to Congress at the present
session it appears that on the 1st of January, 1832, of the
twenty-eight millions of private stock in the corporation,
$8,405,500 were held by foreigners, mostly of Great Britain.
The amount of stock held in the nine Western and
Southwestern States is $140,200, and in the four
Southern States is $5,623,100, and in the Middle
and Eastern States is about $13,522,000.
The profits of the bank in 1831, as shown in a statement
to Congress, were about $3,455,598; of this there
accrued in the nine Western States about $1,640,048;
in the four Southern States about $352,507,
and in the Middle and Eastern States about $1,463,041.
As little stock is held in the West, it is obvious that
the debt of the people in that section to the bank is
principally a debt to the Eastern and foreign stockholders;
that the interest they pay upon it is carried into the
Eastern States and into Europe, and that it is a burden
upon their industry and a drain of their currency,
which no country can bear without
inconvenience and occasional distress.
To meet this burden and equalize the exchange
operations of the bank, the amount of specie drawn from
those States through its branches within the last two years,
as shown by its official reports, was about $6,000,000.
More than half a million of this amount does not stop
in the Eastern States, but passes on to Europe
to pay the dividends of the foreign stockholders.
In the principle of taxation recognized
by this act the Western States find no adequate
compensation for this perpetual burden
on their industry and drain of their currency.
The branch bank at Mobile made last year $95,140,
yet under the provisions of this act the State of Alabama
can raise no revenue from these profitable operations,
because not a share of the stock
is held by any of her citizens.
Mississippi and Missouri are in the same condition
in relation to the branches at Natchez and
St. Louis, and such, in a greater or less degree,
is the condition of every Western State.
The tendency of the plan of taxation which this act
proposes will be to place the whole United States
in the same relation to foreign countries
which the Western States now bear to the Eastern.
When by a tax on resident stockholders the stock of this
bank is made worth 10 or 15 percent more to foreigners
than to residents, most of it will inevitably leave the country.
Thus will this provision in its practical effect deprive
the Eastern as well as the Southern and Western States
of the means of raising a revenue from the extension
of business and great profits of this institution.
It will make the American people debtors to aliens
in nearly the whole amount due to this bank,
and send across the Atlantic from two to five millions
of specie every year to pay the bank dividends.
In another of its bearings
this provision is fraught with danger.
Of the twenty-five directors of this bank five are chosen
by the Government and twenty by the citizen stockholders.
From all voice in these elections the foreign
stockholders are excluded by the charter.
In proportion, therefore, as the stock is
transferred to foreign holders the extent of
suffrage in the choice of directors is curtailed.
Already is almost a third of the stock in
foreign hands and not represented in elections.
It is constantly passing out of the country,
and this act will accelerate its departure.
The entire control of the institution would necessarily
fall into the hands of a few citizen stockholders,
and the ease with which the object would be
accomplished would be a temptation to designing
men to secure that control in their own hands
by monopolizing the remaining stock.
There is danger that a president and directors would
then be able to elect themselves from year to year,
and without responsibility or control manage the whole
concerns of the bank during the existence of its charter.
It is easy to conceive that great evils to our country and its
institutions might flow from such a concentration of power
in the hands of a few men irresponsible to the people.
Is there no danger to our liberty and independence in a
bank that in its nature has so little to bind it to our country?
The president of the bank has told us that
most of the State banks exist by its forbearance.
Should its influence become concentered, as it may
under the operation of such an act as this,
in the hands of a self-elected directory whose interests
are identified with those of the foreign stockholders,
will there not be cause to tremble for the purity
of our elections in peace and for the
independence of our country in war?
Their power would be great whenever they might
choose to exert it; but if this monopoly were regularly
renewed every fifteen or twenty years on terms
proposed by themselves, they might seldom in
peace put forth their strength to influence
elections or control the affairs of the nation.
But if any private citizen or public functionary
should interpose to curtail its powers or prevent
a renewal of its privileges, it cannot be doubted
that he would be made to feel its influence.
Should the stock of the bank principally pass into
the hands of the subjects of a foreign country,
and we should unfortunately become involved in
a war with that country, what would be our condition?
Of the course which would be pursued by a bank
almost wholly owned by the subjects of a foreign power,
and managed by those whose interests, if not affections,
would run in the same direction there can be no doubt.
All its operations within would be in aid
of the hostile fleets and armies without.
Controlling our currency, receiving our public moneys,
and holding thousands of our citizens in dependence,
it would be more formidable and dangerous
than the naval and military power of the enemy.
If we must have a bank with private stockholders,
every consideration of sound policy
and every impulse of American feeling
admonishes that it should be purely American.
Its stockholders should be composed exclusively of our own
citizens, who at least ought to be friendly to our Government
and willing to support it in times of difficulty and danger.
So abundant is domestic capital that competition
in subscribing for the stock of local banks
has recently led almost to riots.
To a bank exclusively of American stockholders,
possessing the powers and privileges granted by this act,
subscriptions for $200,000,000 could be readily obtained.
Instead of sending abroad the stock of the bank in which
the Government must deposit its funds and on which
it must rely to sustain its credit in times of emergency,
it would rather seem to be expedient to prohibit its sale
to aliens under penalty of absolute forfeiture.
It is maintained by the advocates of the bank
that its constitutionality in all its features ought
to be considered as settled by precedent
and by the decision of the Supreme Court.
To this conclusion I cannot assent.
Mere precedent is a dangerous source of authority,
and should not be regarded as deciding questions of
constitutional power except where the acquiescence of the
people and the States can be considered as well settled.
So far from this being the case on this subject, an
argument against the bank might be based on precedent.
One Congress in 1791 decided in favor of a bank;
another in 1811 decided against it.
One Congress in 1815 decided against a bank;
another in 1816 decided in its favor.
Prior to the present Congress, therefore,
the precedents drawn from that source were equal.
If we resort to the States, the expressions of legislative,
judicial, and executive opinions against the bank
have been probably to those in its favor as 4 to 1.
There is nothing in precedent, therefore,
which, if its authority were admitted,
ought to weigh in favor of the act before me.
If the opinion of the Supreme Court covered the
whole ground of this act, it ought not to control
the coordinate authorities of this Government.
The Congress, the Executive, and the Court must each
for itself be guided by its own opinion of the Constitution.
Each public officer who takes an oath to support the
Constitution swears that he will support it as
he understands it and not as it is understood by others.
It is as much the duty of the House of Representatives,
of the Senate, and of the President to decide upon
the constitutionality of any bill or resolution which
may be presented to them for passage or approval
as it is of the supreme judges when it may
be brought before them for judicial decision.
The opinion of the judges has no more authority over
Congress than the opinion of Congress has over the judges,
and on that point the President is independent of both.
The authority of the Supreme Court must not, therefore,
be permitted to control the Congress or the Executive
when acting in their legislative capacities, but to have only
such influence as the force of their reasoning may deserve.
But in the case relied upon the Supreme Court
has not decided that all the features of this
corporation are compatible with the Constitution.
It is true that the court has said that the law incorporating
the bank is a constitutional exercise of power by Congress;
but taking into view the whole opinion of the court and the
reasoning by which they have come to that conclusion,
I understand them to have decided that inasmuch as a
bank is an appropriate means for carrying into effect
the enumerated powers of the General Government,
therefore the law incorporating it is in accordance with that
provision of the Constitution which declares that Congress
shall have power “to make all laws which shall be necessary
and proper for carrying those powers into execution.”
Having satisfied themselves that the word “necessary”
in the Constitution means "needful,” “requisite,” “essential,”
“conducive to,” and that “a bank" is a convenient,
a useful, and essential instrument in the prosecution of
the Government’s “fiscal operations,” they conclude that
to “use one must be within the discretion of Congress”
and that “the act to incorporate the Bank of the United
States is a law made in pursuance of the Constitution;”
“but,” say they, “where the law is not prohibited and is
really calculated to effect any of the objects entrusted to the
Government, to undertake here to inquire into the degree of
its necessity would be to pass the line which circumscribes
the judicial department and to tread on legislative ground.”
The principle here affirmed is that the “degree of its
necessity,” involving all the details of a banking institution,
is a question exclusively for legislative consideration.
A bank is constitutional, but it is the province of the
Legislature to determine whether this or that particular
power, privilege, or exemption is “necessary and proper”
to enable the bank to discharge its duties to the
Government, and from their decision
there is no appeal to the courts of justice.
Under the decision of the Supreme Court, therefore,
it is the exclusive province of Congress and the President
to decide whether the particular features of this act
are necessary and proper in order to enable the bank
to perform conveniently and efficiently the public duties
assigned to it as a fiscal agent, and therefore constitutional,
or unnecessary and improper and therefore unconstitutional.
Without commenting on the general principle affirmed
by the Supreme Court, let us examine the details
of this act in accordance with the rule of legislative
action which they have laid down.
It will be found that many of the powers and privileges
conferred on it cannot be supposed necessary for the
purpose for which it is proposed to be created, and
are not, therefore, means necessary to attain the end
in view and consequently not justified by the Constitution.
The original act of incorporation, section 21,
enacts “that no other bank shall be established
by any future law of the United States during the
continuance of the corporation hereby created,
for which the faith of the United States is hereby pledged:
Provided, Congress may renew existing charters for banks
within the District of Columbia not increasing the capital
thereof, and may also establish any other bank or banks
in said District with capitals not exceeding in the whole
$6,000,000 if they shall deem it expedient.”
This provision is continued in force by the act before
me fifteen years from the 3rd of March, 1836.
If Congress possessed the power to establish one bank,
they had power to establish more than one if in their
opinion two or more banks had been “necessary”
to facilitate the execution of the powers
delegated to them in the Constitution.”
If they possessed the power to establish a second bank,
it was a power derived from the Constitution
to be exercised from time to time, and at any time
when the interests of the country or the emergencies
of the Government might make it expedient.
It was possessed by one Congress as well as another,
and by all Congresses alike, and alike at every session.
But the Congress of 1816 has taken it away from their
successors for twenty years, and the Congress of 1832
proposes to abolish it for fifteen years more.
It cannot be “necessary” or “proper” for Congress to barter
away or divest themselves of any of the powers vested in
them by the Constitution to be exercised for the public good.
It is not “necessary” to the efficiency of the bank, nor is it
“proper” in relation to themselves and their successors.
They may properly use the discretion vested in them,
but they may not limit the discretion of their successors.
This restriction on themselves and grant of a
monopoly to the bank is therefore unconstitutional.
In another point of view this provision is a palpable
attempt to amend the Constitution by an act of legislation.
The Constitution declares that “the Congress shall
have power to exercise exclusive legislation in all
cases whatsoever” over the District of Columbia.
Its constitutional power, therefore, to establish banks
in the District of Columbia and increase their capital
at will is unlimited and uncontrollable by any other power
than that which gave authority to the Constitution.
Yet this act declares that Congress shall not increase
the capital of existing banks, nor create other banks
with capitals exceeding in the whole $6,000,000.
The Constitution declares that Congress shall
have power to exercise exclusive legislation
over this District “in all cases whatsoever,”
and this act declares they shall not.
Which is the supreme law of the land?
This provision cannot be “necessary” or “proper”
or constitutional unless the absurdity be admitted
that whenever it be “necessary and proper” in the
opinion of Congress they have a right to barter away
one portion of the powers vested in them by the
Constitution as a means of executing the rest.
On two subjects only does the Constitution
recognize in Congress the power to grant
exclusive privileges or monopolies.
It declares that “Congress shall have power to promote
the progress of science and useful arts by securing for
limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive
right to their respective writings and discoveries.”
Out of this express delegation of power have
grown our laws of patents and copyrights.
As the Constitution expressly delegates to Congress
the power to grant exclusive privileges in these cases
as the means of executing the substantive power
“to promote the progress of science and useful arts,”
it is consistent with the fair rules of construction
to conclude that such a power was not intended to be
granted as a means of accomplishing any other end.
On every other subject which comes within the scope
of Congressional power there is an ever-living discretion
in the use of proper means, which cannot be restricted
or abolished without an amendment of the Constitution.
Every act of Congress, therefore, which attempts
by grants of monopolies or sale of exclusive
privileges for a limited time, or a time without limit,
to restrict or extinguish its own discretion in the
choice of means to execute its delegated powers
is equivalent to a legislative amendment of the
Constitution, and palpably unconstitutional.
This act authorizes and encourages transfers
of its stock to foreigners and grants them
an exemption from all State and national taxation.
So far from being “necessary and proper” that the bank
should possess this power to make it a safe and efficient
agent of the Government in its fiscal operations, it is
calculated to convert the Bank of the United States into a
foreign bank, to impoverish our people in time of peace,
to disseminate a foreign influence through every section
of the Republic and in war to endanger our independence.
The several States reserved the power at the formation
of the Constitution to regulate and control titles
and transfers of real property, and most, if not all,
of them have laws disqualifying aliens from
acquiring or holding lands within their limits.
But this act, in disregard of the undoubted right of the
States to prescribe such disqualifications, gives to
alien stockholders in this bank an interest and title,
as members of the corporation, to all the real property
it may acquire within any of the States of this Union.
This privilege granted to aliens is not “necessary”
to enable the bank to perform its public duties,
nor in any sense “proper” because it is
vitally subversive of the rights of the States.
The Government of the United States has no
constitutional power to purchase lands within the States
except “for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals,
dockyards, and other needful buildings,” and even for
these objects only “by the consent of the legislature
of the State in which the same shall be.”
By making themselves stockholders in the bank
and granting to the corporation the power to purchase
lands for other purposes they assume a power
not granted in the Constitution and grant to others
what they do not themselves possess.
It is not necessary to the receiving, safe-keeping,
or transmission of the funds of the Government
that the bank should possess this power,
and it is not proper that Congress should thus enlarge
the powers delegated to them in the Constitution.
The old Bank of the United States possessed a capital
of only $11,000,000, which was found fully sufficient
to enable it with dispatch and safety to perform
all the functions required of it by the Government.
The capital of the present bank is $35,000,000—
at least twenty-four more than experience has proved to be
necessary to enable a bank to perform its public functions.
The public debt which existed during the period of the
old bank and on the establishment of the new has been
nearly paid off, and our revenue will soon be reduced.
This increase of capital is therefore
not for public but for private purposes.
The Government is the only “proper” judge
where its agents should reside and keep their offices,
because it best knows where
their presence will be “necessary.”
It cannot, therefore, be “necessary” or “proper”
to authorize the bank to locate branches where
it pleases to perform the public service without
consulting the Government and contrary to its will.
The principle laid down by the Supreme Court concedes
that Congress cannot establish a bank for purposes
of private speculation and gain, but only as a means of
executing the delegated powers of the General Government.
By the same principle a branch bank cannot constitutionally
be established for other than public purposes.
The power which this act gives to establish two branches
in any State, without the injunction or request of the
Government and for other than public purposes,
is not “necessary” to the due execution
of the powers delegated to Congress.
The bonus which is exacted from the bank
is a confession upon the face of the act that
the powers granted by it are greater than are
“necessary” to its character of a fiscal agent.
The Government does not tax its officers
and agents for the privilege of serving it.
The bonus of a million and a half required by the
original charter and that of three millions proposed
by this act are not exacted for the privilege of giving
“the necessary facilities for transferring the public funds
from place to place within the United States or the
Territories thereof, and for distributing the same in
payment of the public creditors without charging commission
or claiming allowance on account of the difference of
exchange,” as required by the act of incorporation,
but for something more beneficial to the stockholders.
The original act declares that it (the bonus) is granted
“in consideration of the exclusive privileges and
benefits conferred by this act upon the said bank,”
and the act before me declares it to be
“in consideration of the exclusive benefits and
privileges continued by this act to the said
corporation for fifteen years, as aforesaid.”
It is therefore for “exclusive privileges and benefits”
conferred for their own use and emolument, and not for
the advantage of the Government, that a bonus is exacted.
These surplus powers for which the bank is
required to pay cannot surely be “necessary”
to make it the fiscal agent of the Treasury.
If they were, the exaction of a bonus
for them would not be ”proper.”
It is maintained by some that the bank is a
means of executing the constitutional power
“to coin money and regulate the value thereof.”
Congress have established a mint to coin money
and passed laws to regulate the value thereof.
The money so coined, with its value so regulated,
and such foreign coins as Congress may adopt
are the only currency known to the Constitution.
But if they have other power to regulate the currency,
it was conferred to be exercised by themselves,
and not to be transferred to a corporation.
If the bank be established for that purpose with
a charter unalterable without its consent,
Congress have parted with their power for a term
of years, during which the Constitution is a dead letter.
It is neither necessary nor proper to transfer its legislative
power to such a bank, and therefore unconstitutional.
By its silence considered in connection with the decision
of the Supreme Court in the case of McCulloch against the
State of Maryland, this act takes from the States the power
to tax a portion of the banking business carried on within
their limits, in subversion of one of the strongest barriers
which secured them against Federal encroachments.
Banking, like farming, manufacturing, or any other
occupation or profession is a business, the right to
follow which is not originally derived from the laws.
Every citizen and every company of citizens in all of our
States possessed the right until the State legislatures
deemed it good policy to prohibit private banking by law.
If the prohibitory State laws were now repealed,
every citizen would again possess the right.
The State banks are a qualified restoration of the right
which has been taken away by the laws against banking,
guarded by such provisions and limitations as in the opinion
of the State legislatures the public interest requires.
These corporations, unless there be an exemption
in their charter, are, like private bankers and
banking companies, subject to State taxation.
The manner in which these taxes shall be laid
depends wholly on legislative discretion.
It may be upon the bank, upon the stock, upon the profits,
or in any other mode which the sovereign power shall will.
Upon the formation of the Constitution the States
guarded their taxing power with peculiar jealousy.
They surrendered it only as it regards imports and exports.
In relation to every other object within their jurisdiction,
whether persons, property, business, or professions, it was
secured in as ample a manner as it was before possessed.
All persons, though United States officers, are liable
to a poll tax by the States within which they reside.
The lands of the United States are liable to the usual
land tax, except in the new States from whom agreements
that they will not tax unsold lands are exacted
when they are admitted into the Union.
Horses, wagons, any beasts or vehicles, tools, or property
belonging to private citizens, though employed in the
service of the United States, are subject to State taxation.
Every private business, whether carried on by an officer
of the General Government or not, whether it be mixed
with public concerns or not, even if it be carried on
by the Government of the United States itself,
separately or in partnership, falls within the
scope of the taxing power of the State.
Nothing comes more fully within it
than banks and the business of banking,
by whomsoever instituted and carried on.
Over this whole subject-matter it is just as absolute,
unlimited, and uncontrollable as if the Constitution
had never been adopted, because in the formation of
that instrument it was reserved without qualification.
The principle is conceded that the States cannot
rightfully tax the operations of the General Government.
They cannot tax the money of the Government deposited
in the State banks, nor the agency of those banks
in remitting it; but will any man maintain that their
mere selection to perform this public service for the
General Government would exempt the State banks
and their ordinary business from State taxation?
Had the United States, instead of establishing a bank
at Philadelphia, employed a private banker to keep and
transmit their funds, would it have deprived Pennsylvania
of the right to tax his bank and his usual banking operations?
It will not be pretended.
Upon what principle, then, are the banking establishments
of the Bank of the United States and their usual
banking operations to be exempted from taxation?
It is not their public agency or the deposits of the
Government which the States claim a right to tax,
but their banks and their banking powers, instituted
and exercised within State jurisdiction for their private
emolument—those powers and privileges for which they
pay a bonus, and which the States tax in their own banks.
The exercise of these powers within a State, no matter
by whom or under what authority, whether by private
citizens in their original right, by corporate bodies
created by the States, by foreigners or the agents
of foreign governments located within their limits,
forms a legitimate object of State taxation.
From this and like sources, from the persons, property,
and business that are found residing, located, or carried on
under their jurisdiction, must the States, since the surrender
of their right to raise a revenue from imports and exports,
draw all the money necessary for the support of their
governments and the maintenance of their independence.
There is no more appropriate subject of taxation than banks,
banking, and bank stocks, and none to which the
States ought more pertinaciously to cling.
It cannot be necessary to the character of the bank as
a fiscal agent of the Government that its private business
should be exempted from that taxation to which all the
State banks are liable, nor can I conceive it “proper” that
the substantive and most essential powers reserved by the
States shall be thus attacked and annihilated as a means of
executing the powers delegated to the General Government.
It may be safely assumed that none of those sages who
had an agency in forming or adopting our Constitution
ever imagined that any portion of the taxing power of the
States not prohibited to them nor delegated to Congress
was to be swept away and annihilated as a means of
executing certain powers delegated to Congress.
If our power over means is so absolute that the
Supreme Court will not call in question the constitutionality
of an act of Congress the subject of which “is not prohibited,
and is really calculated to effect any of the objects entrusted
to the Government,” although, as in the case before me,
it takes away powers expressly granted to Congress
and rights scrupulously reserved to the States,it becomes
us to proceed in our legislation with the utmost caution.
Though not directly, our own powers and the rights
of the States may be indirectly legislated away
in the use of means to execute substantive powers.
We may not enact that Congress shall not have the power
of exclusive legislation over the District of Columbia,
but we may pledge the faith of the United States
that as a means of executing other powers
it shall not be exercised for twenty years or forever.
We may not pass an act prohibiting the States to tax the
banking business carried on within their limits, but we may,
as a means of executing our powers over other objects,
place that business in the hands of our agents and then
declare it exempt from State taxation in their hands.
Thus may our own powers and the rights of the States,
which we cannot directly curtail or invade,
be frittered away and extinguished in the use
of means employed by us to execute other powers.
That a bank of the United States, competent to all
the duties which may be required by the Government,
might be so organized as not to infringe on our
own delegated powers or the reserved rights
of the States I do not entertain a doubt.
Had the Executive been called upon to furnish
the project of such an institution, the duty
would have been cheerfully performed.
In the absence of such a call it was obviously proper that
he should confine himself to pointing out those prominent
features in the act; presented which in his opinion make
it incompatible with the Constitution and sound policy.
A general discussion will now take place, eliciting new light
and settling important principles; and a new Congress,
elected in the midst of such discussion, and furnishing
an equal representation of the people according to
the last census, will bear to the Capitol the verdict
of public opinion, and, I doubt not, bring this
important question to a satisfactory result.
Under such circumstances the bank comes forward
and asks a renewal of its charter for a term of fifteen years
upon conditions which not only operate as a gratuity to the
stockholders of many millions of dollars, but will sanction
any abuses and legalize any encroachments.
Suspicions are entertained and charges are
made of gross abuse and violation of its charter.
An investigation unwillingly conceded and so
restricted in time as necessarily to make it
incomplete and unsatisfactory discloses
enough to excite suspicion and alarm.
In the practices of the principal bank partially unveiled,
in the absence of important witnesses, and in numerous
charges confidently made and as yet wholly uninvestigated
there was enough to induce a majority of the committee
of investigation—a committee which was selected from
the most able and honorable members of the House of
Representatives—to recommend a suspension of further
action upon the bill and a prosecution of the inquiry.
As the charter had yet four years to run, and as a renewal
now was not necessary to the successful prosecution of its
business, it was to have been expected that the bank itself,
conscious of its purity and proud of its character,
would have withdrawn its application for the present,
and demanded the severest scrutiny into all its transactions.
In their declining to do so there seems to be an
additional reason why the functionaries of the
Government should proceed with less haste
and more caution in the renewal of their monopoly.
The bank is professedly established as an agent
of the executive branch of the Government,
and its constitutionality is maintained on that ground.
Neither upon the propriety of present action nor upon
the provisions of this act was the Executive consulted.
It has had no opportunity to say that it neither needs
nor wants an agent clothed with such powers
and favored by such exemptions.
There is nothing in its legitimate functions
which makes it necessary or proper.
Whatever interest or influence, whether public or private,
has given birth to this act, it cannot be found either in the
wishes or necessities of the executive department,
by which present action is deemed premature, and
the powers conferred upon its agent not only unnecessary,
but dangerous to the Government and country.
It is to be regretted that the rich and powerful too often
bend the acts of government to their selfish purposes.
Distinctions in society will always exist
under every just government.
Equality of talents, of education, or of wealth
cannot be produced by human institutions.
In the full enjoyment of the gifts of Heaven and the fruits
of superior industry, economy, and virtue, every man is
equally entitled to protection by law; but when the laws
undertake to add to these natural and just advantages
artificial distinctions, to grant titles, gratuities, and exclusive
privileges, to make the rich richer and the potent more
powerful, the humble members of society—the farmers,
mechanics, and laborers—who have neither the time nor
the means of securing like favors to themselves, have a
right to complain of the injustice of their Government.
There are no necessary evils in government.
Its evils exist only in its abuses.
If it would confine itself to equal protection, and,
as Heaven does its rains, shower its favors alike
on the high and the low, the rich and the poor,
it would be an unqualified blessing.
In the act before me there seems to be a wide and
unnecessary departure from these just principles.
Nor is our Government to be maintained
or our Union preserved by invasions of the rights
and powers of the several States.
In thus attempting to make our General
Government strong we make it weak.
Its true strength consists in leaving individuals and
States as much as possible to themselves—
in making itself felt, not in its power, but in its beneficence;
not in its control, but in its protection;
not in binding the States more closely to the center,
but leaving each to move unobstructed in its proper orbit.
Experience should teach us wisdom.
Most of the difficulties our Government now encounters
and most of the dangers which impend over our Union
have sprung from an abandonment of the legitimate
objects of Government by our national legislation, and
the adoption of such principles as are embodied in this act.
Many of our rich men have not been content with equal
protection and equal benefits, but have besought us
to make them richer by act of Congress.
By attempting to gratify their desires we have
in the results of our legislation arrayed section
against section, interest against interest,
and man against man, in a fearful commotion which
threatens to shake the foundations of our Union.
It is time to pause in our career to review our principles,
and if possible revive that devoted patriotism and spirit
of compromise 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.
I have now done my duty to my country.
If sustained by my fellow citizens, I shall be grateful
and happy; if not, I shall find in the motives which
impel me ample grounds for contentment and peace.
In the difficulties which surround us and the dangers
which threaten our institutions there is cause
for neither dismay nor alarm.
For relief and deliverance let us firmly rely on that
kind Providence which I am sure watches with peculiar
care over the destinies of our Republic, and on the
intelligence and wisdom of our countrymen.
Through His abundant goodness and their patriotic
devotion our liberty and Union will be preserved.2
Daniel Webster on 11 July 1832 criticized Jackson for confusing distinctions
and turning “all constitutional restraints into mere matters of opinion” and for destroying
“any practical limitations on the powers of the respective branches of the government.”3
The Senate lacked two-thirds to overturn the veto on a 22-19 vote on 13 July 1832.
Jackson’s decision to end the United States Bank has been called
the most significant presidential veto in American history.
In the election campaign Biddle used the U. S. Bank to spend $80,000 printing materials
to try to defeat Jackson and another $20,000 without any accounting.
On 14 July 1832 the U. S. Congress passed another protectionist tariff that
extended duties on textiles, hemp, and iron but it lowered the rates to that of the 1824 tariff.
South Carolina had become more dependent on cotton
and slave labor and strenuously protested this tariff.
Their Governor James Hamilton organized the nullifiers with support from Calhoun,
and they defeated the Unionists in the election.
New York Senator William L. Marcy said in August 1832 that Jacksonians preach
what they practice and that “They see nothing wrong in the rule
that to the victor belongs the spoils of the enemy.”
Thus patronage was called the “spoils system.”
Jackson heard rumors of a possible mutiny among military officers in Charleston,
and on September 17 he ordered some federal troops sent to South Carolina in October.
During the campaign Jackson attended a Democratic barbecue in Lexington,
Clay’s home town, but Clay followed the tradition of declining invitations.
Gov. Hamilton called for a special session of the South Carolina legislature which
by a two-thirds majority authorized a nullification convention at Columbia on November 19.
On the 24th their Ordinance of Nullification declared the tariffs of 1828 and 1832
unconstitutional and nullified in South Carolina starting in February 1833.
If the federal government tried to coerce them, they planned to secede from the Union.
Hamilton persuaded the legislature to approve an army of 12,000 volunteers.
South Carolina elected Robert Y. Hayne governor.
He took office on December 13 and ordered 25,000 volunteers to train at home.
Calhoun had been elected to the United States Senate
and resigned as Vice President on 28 December 1832.
In South Carolina medals were struck inscribed “John C. Calhoun,
First President of the Southern Confederacy.”
Jackson had Edward Livingston draft a response to nullification,
and the President issued his Proclamation to the People of South Carolina
on December 10 which includes the statement:
“Disunion by armed force is treason”4 and this thesis:
I consider, then, the power to annul
a law of the United States, assumed by one State,
incompatible with the existence of the Union,
contradicted expressly by the letter of the Constitution,
unauthorized by its spirit,
inconsistent with every principle on which it was founded,
and destructive of the great object
for which it was formed.5
South Carolina replied on December 20 arguing that Jackson was not authorized
to interfere in the affairs of the states nor could he order them to repeal their legislation,
that his opinions were dangerous and could lead
to “concentration of all powers in the chief executive.”
Thus they believed that each state has the right “to secede peaceably from the Union.”6
A cholera epidemic spread down the Hudson River
into New York City in June and took 4,000 lives.
In late July and early August cholera also infected Washington and part of Virginia.
In the campaign Francis Blair printed and distributed massive copies of the Globe
while Kendall managed Jackson’s campaign
and used local Hickory Clubs to help the state parties.
The National Republican nominee Henry Clay
did not even try to get votes in the southern states.
In 1832 the national debt had been reduced from $24,322,235 to $7,001,699,
but between 1830 and 1838 state debts would increase by 660%.
Jackson received 54% of the popular vote and on December 5 was re-elected
by the electoral college with 219 votes to 49 for National Republican Henry Clay
who got 34% of the popular vote.
Anti-Masonic candidate William Wirt received 8% with 7 electoral votes from Vermont.
Virginia’s state-rights Governor John Floyd won 11 electoral votes from South Carolina.
Van Buren was also easily elected Vice President with 189 electoral votes.
On 4 December 1832 President Jackson presented this long 4th Annual message
to Congress detailing his governmental principles policies during the year
while praising the free enterprise of citizens and help from state governments:
It gives me pleasure to congratulate you upon your
return to the seat of Government for the purpose of
discharging your duties to the people of the United States.
Although the pestilence which had traversed the
Old World has entered our limits and extended its
ravages over much of our land, it has pleased
Almighty God to mitigate its severity and lessen the
number of its victims compared with those who have fallen
in most other countries over which it has spread its terrors.
Notwithstanding this visitation, our country presents
on every side marks of prosperity and happiness
unequaled, perhaps, in any other portion of the world.
If we fully appreciate our comparative condition,
existing causes of discontent will appear unworthy of
attention, and, with hearts of thankfulness to that
divine Being who has filled our cup of prosperity,
we shall feel our resolution strengthened to preserve
and hand down to posterity that liberty and that union
which we have received from our fathers, and which
constitute the sources and the shield of all our blessings.
The relations of our country continue to
present the same picture of amicable intercourse
that I had the satisfaction to hold up to your
view at the opening of your last session.
The same friendly professions, the same desire
to participate in our flourishing commerce,
the same disposition to refrain from injuries
unintentionally offered, are, with few exceptions,
evinced by all nations with whom we have any intercourse.
This desirable state of things may be mainly ascribed
to our undeviating practice of the rule which has long
guided our national policy, to require no exclusive
privileges in commerce and to grant none.
It is daily producing its beneficial effect in the respect
shown to our flag, the protection of our citizens and
their property abroad, and in the increase of our
navigation and the extension of our mercantile operations.
The returns which have been made out since we last met
will show an increase during the last preceding year of
more than 80,000 tons in our shipping and of near
$40,000,000 in the aggregate of our imports and exports.
Nor have we less reason to felicitate ourselves on the
position of our political than of our commercial concerns.
They remain in the state in which they were when
I last addressed you—a state of prosperity and peace,
the effect of a wise attention to the parting advice of the
revered Father of his Country on this subject,
condensed into a maxim for the use of posterity
by one of his most distinguished successors—
to cultivate free commerce and honest friendship with
all nations, but to make entangling alliances with none.
A strict adherence to this policy has kept us aloof
from the perplexing questions that now agitate
the European world and have more than once
deluged those countries with blood.
Should those scenes unfortunately recur, the parties to the
contest may count on a faithful performance of the duties
incumbent on us as a neutral nation, and our own citizens
may equally rely on the firm assertion of their neutral rights.
With the nation that was our earliest friend and ally
in the infancy of our political existence the most friendly
relations have subsisted through the late revolutions
of its Government, and, from the events of the last,
promise a permanent duration.
It has made an approximation in some of its political
institutions to our own, and raised a monarch to the
throne who preserves, it is said, a friendly recollection
of the period during which he acquired among our
citizens the high consideration that could then have
been produced by his personal qualifications alone.
Our commerce with that nation is gradually assuming
a mutually beneficial character, and the adjustment
of the claims of our citizens has removed the only
obstacle there was to an intercourse not only lucrative,
but productive of literary and scientific improvement.
From Great Britain I have the satisfaction to inform
you that I continue to receive assurances of the most
amicable disposition, which have on my part on all proper
occasions been promptly and sincerely reciprocated.
The attention of that Government has latterly been
so much engrossed by matters of a deeply interesting
domestic character that we could not press upon it the
renewal of negotiations which had been unfortunately
broken off by the unexpected recall of our minister,
who had commenced them with some hopes of success.
My great object was the settlement of questions which,
though now dormant, might hereafter be revived under
circumstances that would endanger the good understanding
which it is the interest of both parties to preserve inviolate,
cemented as it is by a community of language, manners,
and social habits, and by the high obligations we owe to our
British ancestors for many of our most valuable institutions
and for that system of representative government
which has enabled us to preserve and improve them.
The question of our northeastern
boundary still remains unsettled.
In my last annual message I explained to you
the situation in which I found that business on my
coming into office, and the measures I thought it
my duty to pursue for asserting the rights of the
United States before the sovereign who had been
chosen by my predecessor to determine the question,
and also the manner in which he had disposed of it.
A special message to the Senate in their executive
capacity afterwards brought before them the
question whether they would advise a submission
to the opinion of the sovereign arbiter.
That body having considered the award as not
obligatory and advised me to open a further
negotiation, the proposition was immediately
made to the British Government, but the
circumstances to which I have alluded have hitherto
prevented any answer being given to the overture.
Early attention, however, has been promised to the subject,
and every effort on my part will be made for a satisfactory
settlement of this question, interesting to the Union
generally, and particularly so to one of its members.
The claims of our citizens on Spain
are not yet acknowledged.
On a closer investigation of them than appears to have
heretofore taken place it was discovered that some of
these demands, however strong they might be upon the
equity of that Government, were not such as could be
made the subject of national interference; and faithful
to the principle of asking nothing but what was clearly right,
additional instructions have been sent to modify our
demands so as to embrace those only on which, according
to the laws of nations, we had a strict right to insist.
An inevitable delay in procuring the documents necessary
for this review of the merits of these claims retarded this
operation until an unfortunate malady which has afflicted
His Catholic Majesty prevented an examination of them.
Being now for the first time presented in an
unexceptionable form, it is confidently hoped
that the application will be successful.
I have the satisfaction to inform you that the application
I directed to be made for the delivery of a part of the
archives of Florida, which had been carried to Havana,
has produced a royal order for their delivery, and that
measures have been taken to procure its execution.
By the report of the Secretary of State communicated
to you on the 25th June last you were informed of the
conditional reduction obtained by the minister of the
United States at Madrid of the duties on tonnage
levied on American shipping in the ports of Spain.
The condition of that reduction having been complied
with on our part by the act passed the 13th of July last,
I have the satisfaction to inform you that our ships
now pay no higher nor other duties in the continental
ports of Spain than are levied on their national vessels.
The demands against Portugal for illegal captures
in the blockade of Terceira have been allowed to the full
amount of the accounts presented by the claimants, and
payment was promised to be made in three installments.
The first of these has been paid; the second, although due,
had not at the date of our last advices been received,
owing, it was alleged, to embarrassments in the finances
consequent on the civil war in which that nation is engaged.
The payments stipulated by the convention with
Denmark have been punctually made, and the amount is
ready for distribution among the claimants as soon as the
board, now sitting, shall have performed their functions.
I regret that by the last advices from our chargé
d’affaires at Naples that Government had still delayed
the satisfaction due to our citizens, but at that date
the effect of the last instructions was not known.
Dispatches from thence are hourly expected, and
the result will be communicated to you without delay.
With the rest of Europe our relations,
political and commercial, remain unchanged.
Negotiations are going on to put on a permanent
basis the liberal system of commerce now carried
on between us and the Empire of Russia.
The treaty concluded with Austria is executed
by His Imperial Majesty with the most perfect
good faith, and as we have no diplomatic agent
at his Court he personally inquired into and
corrected a proceeding of some of his subaltern
officers to the injury of our consul in one of his ports.
Our treaty with the Sublime Porte is producing
its expected effects on our commerce.
New markets are opening for our commodities and a
more extensive range for the employment of our ships.
A slight augmentation of the duties on our commerce,
inconsistent with the spirit of the treaty, had been imposed,
but on the representation of our chargé d’affaires
it has been promptly withdrawn, and we now enjoy
the trade and navigation of the Black Sea and of all
the ports belonging to the Turkish Empire and Asia
on the most perfect equality with all foreign nations.
I wish earnestly that in announcing to you the
continuance of friendship and the increase of a
profitable commercial intercourse with Mexico, with
Central America, and the States of the South I could
accompany it with the assurance that they all are blessed
with that internal tranquility and foreign peace which their
heroic devotion to the cause of their independence merits.
In Mexico a sanguinary struggle is now carried on, which
has caused some embarrassment to our commerce, but
both parties profess the most friendly disposition toward us.
To the termination of this contest we look for the
establishment of that secure intercourse so necessary
to nations whose territories are contiguous.
How important it will be to us we may calculate from
the fact that even in this unfavorable state of things
our maritime commerce has increased, and an internal
trade by caravans from St. Louis to Santa Fe, under
the protection of escorts furnished by the Government,
is carried on to great advantage and is daily increasing.
The agents provided for by the treaty, with this
power to designate the boundaries which it established,
have been named on our part, but one of the evils
of the civil war now raging there has been that the
appointment of those with whom they were to
cooperate has not yet been announced to us.
The Government of Central America has
expelled from its territory the party which
some time since disturbed its peace.
Desirous of fostering a favorable disposition toward us,
which has on more than one occasion been evinced by
this interesting country, I made a second attempt in this
year to establish a diplomatic intercourse with them;
but the death of the distinguished citizen whom
I had appointed for that purpose has retarded
the execution of measures from which
I hoped much advantage to our commerce.
The union of the three States which formed the
Republic of Colombia has been dissolved, but they all,
it is believed, consider themselves as separately bound
by the treaty which was made in their federal capacity.
The minister accredited to the federation continues in
that character near the Government of New Granada,
and hopes were entertained that a new union
would be formed between the separate States,
at least for the purposes of foreign intercourse.
Our minister has been instructed to use his good offices,
whenever they shall be desired, to produce the reunion
so much to be wished for, the domestic tranquility of the
parties, and the security and facility of foreign commerce.
Some agitations naturally attendant on an infant
reign have prevailed in the Empire of Brazil, which
have had the usual effect upon commercial operations,
and while they suspended the consideration of claims
created on similar occasions, they have given
rise to new complaints on the part of our citizens.
A proper consideration for calamities and difficulties
of this nature has made us less urgent and peremptory
in our demands for justice than duty to our fellow-citizens
would under other circumstances have required.
But their claims are not neglected, and will on all
proper occasions be urged, and it is hoped with effect.
I refrain from making any communication on the subject
of our affairs with Buenos Aires, because the negotiation
communicated to you in my last annual message was at
the date of our last advices still pending and in a state
that would render a publication of the details inexpedient.
A treaty of amity and commerce has been
formed with the Republic of Chile, which,
if approved by the Senate, will be laid before you.
That Government seems to be established and
at peace with its neighbors; and its ports being the
resorts of our ships which are employed in the highly
important trade of the fisheries, this commercial convention
cannot but be of great advantage to our fellow-citizens
engaged in that perilous but profitable business.
Our commerce with the neighboring State of Peru,
owing to the onerous duties levied on our principal articles
of export, has been on the decline, and all endeavors
to procure an alteration have hitherto proved fruitless.
With Bolivia we have yet no diplomatic intercourse,
and the continual contests carried on between it and
Peru have made me defer until a more favorable
period the appointment of any agent for that purpose.
An act of atrocious piracy having been committed on
one of our trading ships by the inhabitants of a settlement
on the west coast of Sumatra, a frigate was dispatched
with orders to demand satisfaction for the injury if those
who committed it should be found to be members of a
regular government, capable of maintaining the usual
relations with foreign nations; but if, as it was supposed
and as they proved to be, they were a band of lawless
pirates, to inflict such a chastisement as would
deter them and others from like aggressions.
This last was done, and the effect has been
an increased respect for our flag in those distant
seas and additional security for our commerce.
In the view I have given of our connection
with foreign powers allusions have been made
to their domestic disturbances or foreign wars,
to their revolutions or dissensions.
It may be proper to observe that this is done solely
in cases where those events affect our political relations
with them, or to show their operation on our commerce.
Further than this it is neither our policy
nor our right to interfere.
Our best wishes on all occasions, our good offices
when required, will be afforded to promote the
domestic tranquility and foreign peace of all
nations with whom we have any intercourse.
Any intervention in their affairs further than this,
even by the expression of an official opinion,
is contrary to our principles of international policy,
and will always be avoided.
The report which the Secretary of the Treasury
will in due time lay before you will exhibit the
national finances in a highly prosperous state.
Owing to the continued success of our commercial
enterprise, which has enabled the merchants to fulfill
their engagements with the Government, the receipts
from customs during the year will exceed the estimate
presented at the last session, and with the other
means of the Treasury will prove fully adequate
not only to meet the increased expenditures
resulting from the large appropriations made
by Congress, but to provide for the payment of
all the public debt which is at present redeemable.
It is now estimated that the customs will yield to the
Treasury during the present year upward of $28,000,000.
The public lands, however, have proved less
productive than was anticipated, and according to
present information will not much exceed two millions.
The expenditures for all objects other than the
public debt are estimated to amount during the
year to about sixteen millions and a half, while
a still larger sum, viz, $18,000,000, will have been
applied to the principal and interest of the public debt.
It is expected, however, that in consequence of the
reduced rates of duty which will take effect after the
3rd of March next there will be a considerable falling
off in the revenue from customs in the year 1833.
It will nevertheless be amply sufficient to provide
for all the wants of the public service, estimated
even upon a liberal scale, and for the redemption
and purchase of the remainder of the public debt.
On the 1st of January next the entire public debt of the
United States, funded and unfunded, will be reduced
to within a fraction of $7,000,000, of which $2,227,363
are not of right redeemable until the 1st of January, 1834,
and $4,735,296 not until the 2nd of January, 1835.
The commissioners of the sinking funds, however,
being invested with full authority to purchase the debt
at the market price, and the means of the Treasury
being ample, it may be hoped that the whole
will be extinguished within the year 1833.
I cannot too cordially congratulate Congress
and my fellow-citizens on the near approach
of that memorable and happy event—the extinction
of the public debt of this great and free nation.
Faithful to the wise and patriotic policy marked out
by the legislation of the country for this object, the
present Administration has devoted to it all the means
which a flourishing commerce has supplied and a
prudent economy preserved for the public Treasury.
Within the four years for which the people have
confided the Executive power to my charge $58,000,000
will have been applied to the payment of the public debt.
That this has been accomplished without stinting the
expenditures for all other proper objects will be seen
by referring to the liberal provision made during the
same period for the support and increase of our
means of maritime and military defense, for internal
improvements of a national character, for the
removal and preservation of the Indians, and,
lastly, for the gallant veterans of the Revolution.
The final removal of this great burden from our resources
affords the means of further provision for all the objects of
general welfare and public defense which the Constitution
authorizes, and presents the occasion for such further
reduction in the revenue as may not be required for them.
From the report of the Secretary of the Treasury it will
be seen that after the present year such a reduction
may be made to a considerable extent, and the subject
is earnestly recommended to the consideration of Congress
in the hope that the combined wisdom of the representatives
of the people will devise such means of effecting that
salutary object as may remove those burdens which
shall be found to fall unequally upon any and as may
promote all the great interests of the community.
Long and patient reflection has strengthened the
opinions I have heretofore expressed to Congress on this
subject, and I deem it my duty on the present occasion
again to urge them upon the attention of the Legislature.
The soundest maxims of public policy and the principles
upon which our republican institutions are founded
recommend a proper adaptation of the revenue to the
expenditure, and they also require that the expenditure
shall be limited to what, by an economical administration,
shall be consistent with the simplicity of the Government
and necessary to an efficient public service.
In effecting this adjustment it is due, in justice to
the interests of the different States, and even to the
preservation of the Union itself, that the protection
afforded by existing laws to any branches of the national
industry should not exceed what may be necessary to
counteract the regulations of foreign nations and to secure
a supply of those articles of manufacture essential to the
national independence and safety in time of war.
If upon investigation it shall be found, as it is believed
it will be, that the legislative protection granted to any
particular interest is greater than is indispensably requisite
for these objects, I recommend that it be gradually
diminished, and that as far as may be consistent with
these objects the whole scheme of duties be reduced to the
revenue standard as soon as a just regard to the faith of the
Government and to the preservation of the large capital
invested in establishments of domestic industry will permit.
That manufactures adequate to the supply of our
domestic consumption would in the abstract be
beneficial to our country there is no reason to doubt,
and to effect their establishment there is perhaps
no American citizen who would not for a while
be willing to pay a higher price for them.
But for this purpose it is presumed that a tariff of
high duties, designed for perpetual protection,
has entered into the minds of but few of our statesmen.
The most they have anticipated is a temporary and,
generally, incidental protection, which they maintain
has the effect to reduce the price by domestic
competition below that of the foreign article.
Experience, however, our best guide on this as on other
subjects, makes it doubtful whether the advantages of
this system are not counterbalanced by many evils,
and whether it does not tend to beget in the minds of
a large portion of our countrymen a spirit of discontent
and jealousy dangerous to the stability of the Union.
What, then, shall be done?
Large interests have grown up under the implied
pledge of our national legislation, which it would
seem a violation of public faith suddenly to abandon.
Nothing could justify it but the public safety,
which is the supreme law.
But those who have vested their capital in manufacturing
establishments cannot expect that the people will
continue permanently to pay high taxes for their benefit,
when the money is not required for any legitimate
purpose in the administration of the Government.
Is it not enough that the high duties have been paid as long
as the money arising from them could be applied to the
common benefit in the extinguishment of the public debt?
Those who take an enlarged view of the condition
of our country must be satisfied that the policy of
protection must be ultimately limited to those
articles of domestic manufacture which are
indispensable to our safety in time of war.
Within this scope, on a reasonable scale, it is recommended
by every consideration of patriotism and duty, which will
doubtless always secure to it a liberal and efficient support.
But beyond this object we have already seen the
operation of the system productive of discontent.
In some sections of the Republic its influence is deprecated
as tending to concentrate wealth into a few hands, and as
creating those germs of dependence and vice which in other
countries have characterized the existence of monopolies
and proved so destructive of liberty and the general good.
A large portion of the people in one section of the Republic
declares it not only inexpedient on these grounds,
but as disturbing the equal relations of property by
legislation, and therefore unconstitutional and unjust.
Doubtless these effects are in a great degree
exaggerated, and may be ascribed to a mistaken
view of the considerations which led to the adoption
of the tariff system; but they are nevertheless
important in enabling us to review the subject with a
more thorough knowledge of all its bearings upon the
great interests of the Republic, and with a determination
to dispose of it so that none can with justice complain.
It is my painful duty to state that in one quarter
of the United States opposition to the revenue laws
has arisen to a height which threatens to thwart their
execution, if not to endanger the integrity of the Union.
Whatever obstructions may be thrown in the way
of the judicial authorities of the General Government,
it is hoped they will be able peaceably to overcome
them by the prudence of their own officers
and the patriotism of the people.
But should this reasonable reliance on the moderation
and good sense of all portions of our fellow-citizens
be disappointed, it is believed that the laws
themselves are fully adequate to the suppression
of such attempts as may be immediately made.
Should the exigency arise rendering the execution
of the existing laws impracticable from any cause
whatever, prompt notice of it will be given to
Congress with a suggestion of such views and
measures as may be deemed necessary to meet it.
In conformity with principles heretofore explained,
and with the hope of reducing the General Government
to that simple machine which the Constitution created
and of withdrawing from the States all other influence
than that of its universal beneficence in preserving peace,
affording a uniform currency, maintaining the inviolability
of contracts, diffusing intelligence, and discharging unfelt
its other superintending functions, I recommend that
provision be made to dispose of all stocks now held by it
in corporations, whether created by the General or State
Governments, and placing the proceeds in the Treasury.
As a source of profit these stocks are of little or no value;
as a means of influence among the States
they are adverse to the purity of our institutions.
The whole principle on which they are based is deemed
by many unconstitutional, and to persist in the policy
which they indicate is considered wholly inexpedient.
It is my duty to acquaint you with an arrangement
made by the Bank of the United States with a portion
of the holders of the 3 percent stock, by which
the Government will be deprived of the use of
the public funds longer than was anticipated.
By this arrangement, which will be particularly
explained by the Secretary of the Treasury,
a surrender of the certificates of this stock may be
postponed until October, 1833, and thus the liability of the
Government, after its ability to discharge the debt, may be
continued by the failure of the bank to perform its duties.
Such measures as are within the reach of the Secretary
of the Treasury have been taken to enable him to judge
whether the public deposits in that institution may be
regarded as entirely safe; but as his limited power
may prove inadequate to this object, I recommend
the subject to the attention of Congress, under the
firm belief that it is worthy of their serious investigation.
An inquiry into the transactions of the institution,
embracing the branches as well as the principal bank,
seems called for by the credit which is given throughout the
country to many serious charges impeaching its character,
and which if true may justly excite the apprehension that it
is no longer a safe depository of the money of the people.
Among the interests which merit the consideration of
Congress after the payment of the public debt, one of
the most important, in my view, is that of the public lands.
Previous to the formation of our present Constitution
it was recommended by Congress that a portion of the
waste lands owned by the States should be ceded to
the United States for the purposes of general harmony
and as a fund to meet the expenses of the war.
The recommendation was adopted, and at different periods
of time the States of Massachusetts, New York, Virginia,
North and South Carolina, and Georgia granted their
vacant soil for the uses for which they had been asked.
As the lands may now be considered as relieved from this
pledge, the object for which they were ceded having
been accomplished, it is in the discretion of Congress to
dispose of them in such way as best to conduce to the quiet,
harmony, and general interest of the American people.
In examining this question all local and sectional feelings
should be discarded and the whole United States
regarded as one people, interested alike in
the prosperity of their common country.
It cannot be doubted that the speedy settlement of
these lands constitutes the true interest of the Republic.
The wealth and strength of a country are its population, and
the best part of that population are the cultivators of the soil.
Independent farmers are everywhere the
basis of society and true friends of liberty.
In addition to these considerations questions have
already arisen, and may be expected hereafter to grow
out of the public lands, which involve the rights of the
new States and the powers of the General Government,
and unless a liberal policy be now adopted there is
danger that these questions may speedily assume
an importance not now generally anticipated.
The influence of a great sectional interest,
when brought into full action, will be found more
dangerous to the harmony and union of the States
than any other cause of discontent, and it is the
part of wisdom and sound policy to foresee its
approaches and endeavor if possible to counteract them.
Of the various schemes which have been
hitherto proposed in regard to the disposal of
the public lands, none has yet received the
entire approbation of the National Legislature.
Deeply impressed with the importance of a speedy
and satisfactory arrangement of the subject,
I deem it my duty on this occasion to urge it upon
your consideration, and to the propositions which
have been heretofore suggested by others to contribute
those reflections which have occurred to me in the hope
that they may assist you in your future deliberations.
It seems to me to be our true policy that the public
lands shall cease as soon as practicable to be a source
of revenue, and that they be sold to settlers in limited
parcels at a price barely sufficient to reimburse to the
United States the expense of the present system
and the cost arising under our Indian compacts.
The advantages of accurate surveys and undoubted titles
now secured to purchasers seem to forbid the abolition
of the present system, because none can be substituted
which will more perfectly accomplish these important ends.
It is desirable, however, that in convenient time this
machinery be withdrawn from the States, and that
the right of soil and the future disposition of it be
surrendered to the States respectively in which it lies.
The adventurous and hardy population of the West,
besides contributing their equal share of taxation under
our impost system, have in the progress of our
Government, for the lands they occupy, paid into
the Treasury a large proportion of $40,000,000,
and of the revenue received therefrom but a
small part has been expended among them.
When to the disadvantage of their situation in this respect
we add the consideration that it is their labor alone which
gives real value to the lands, and that the proceeds arising
from their sale are distributed chiefly among States which
had not originally any claim to them, and which have
enjoyed the undivided emolument arising from the
sale of their own lands, it cannot be expected that
the new States will remain longer contented with the
present policy after the payment of the public debt.
To avert the consequences which may be apprehended
from this cause, to put an end forever to all partial
and interested legislation on the subject, and to
afford to every American citizen of enterprise the
opportunity of securing an independent freehold,
it seems to me, therefore, best to abandon the idea
of raising a future revenue out of the public lands.
In former messages I have expressed my conviction
that the Constitution does not warrant the application of the
funds of the General Government to objects of internal
improvement which are not national in their character,
and both as a means of doing justice to all interests and
putting an end to a course of legislation calculated to destroy
the purity of the Government, have urged the necessity of
reducing the whole subject to some fixed and certain rule.
As there never will occur a period, perhaps, more propitious
than the present to the accomplishment of this object,
I beg leave to press the subject again upon your attention.
Without some general and well-defined principles
ascertaining those objects of internal improvement
to which the means of the nation may be
constitutionally applied, it is obvious that the
exercise of the power can never be satisfactory.
Besides the danger to which it exposes Congress
of making hasty appropriations to works of the character
of which they may be frequently ignorant, it promotes
a mischievous and corrupting influence upon elections
by holding out to the people the fallacious hope that the
success of a certain candidate will make navigable their
neighboring creek or river, bring commerce to their doors,
and increase the value of their property.
It thus favors combinations to squander the treasure
of the country upon a multitude of local objects,
as fatal to just legislation as to the purity of public men.
If a system compatible with the Constitution
cannot be devised which is free from such tendencies,
we should recollect that that instrument provides
within itself the mode of its amendment, and that
there is, therefore, no excuse for the assumption
of doubtful powers by the General Government.
If those which are clearly granted shall be found
incompetent to the ends of its creation, it can
at any time apply for their enlargement;
and there is no probability that such an application,
if founded on the public interest, will ever be refused.
If the propriety of the proposed grant be not sufficiently
apparent to command the assent of three-fourths
of the States, the best possible reason why the power
should not be assumed on doubtful authority is afforded;
for if more than one-fourth of the States are unwilling
to make the grant its exercise will be productive of
discontents which will far overbalance any
advantages that could be derived from it.
All must admit that there is nothing so worthy
of the constant solicitude of this Government
as the harmony and union of the people.
Being solemnly impressed with the conviction that the
extension of the power to make internal improvements
beyond the limit I have suggested, even if it be deemed
constitutional, is subversive of the best interests of our
country, I earnestly recommend to Congress to refrain
from its exercise in doubtful cases, except in relation to
improvements already begun, unless they shall first procure
from the States such an amendment of the Constitution
as will define its character and prescribe its bounds.
If the States feel themselves competent to these objects,
why should this Government wish to assume the power?
If they do not, then they will not hesitate to make the grant.
Both Governments are the Governments of the people;
improvements must be made with the money of the people,
and if the money can be collected and applied by those
more simple and economical political machines,
the State governments, it will unquestionably be safer
and better for the people than to add to the splendor,
the patronage, and the power of the General Government.
But if the people of the several States think otherwise
they will amend the Constitution, and in their
decision all ought cheerfully to acquiesce.
For a detailed and highly satisfactory view of the
operations of the War Department I refer you to
the accompanying report of the Secretary of War.
The hostile incursions of the Sac and Fox Indians
necessarily led to the interposition of the Government.
A portion of the troops under Generals
Scott and Atkinson, and of the militia of
the State of Illinois were called into the field.
After a harassing warfare, prolonged by the nature
of the country and by the difficulty of procuring
subsistence, the Indians were entirely defeated,
and the disaffected band dispersed or destroyed.
The result has been creditable to
the troops engaged in the service.
Severe as is the lesson to the Indians, it was rendered
necessary by their unprovoked aggressions, and it is to be
hoped that its impression will be permanent and salutary.
This campaign has evinced the efficient organization
of the Army and its capacity for prompt and active service.
Its several departments have performed
their functions with energy and dispatch,
and the general movement was satisfactory.
Our fellow-citizens upon the frontiers were ready,
as they always are, in the tender of
their services in the hour of danger.
But a more efficient organization of our militia system
is essential to that security which is one of
the principal objects of all governments.
Neither our situation nor our institutions require
or permit the maintenance of a large regular force.
History offers too many lessons of the fatal result of
such a measure not to warn us against its adoption here.
The expense which attends it, the obvious tendency
to employ it because it exists and thus to engage
in unnecessary wars, and its ultimate danger to
public liberty will lead us, I trust, to place our
principal dependence for protection upon the
great body of the citizens of the Republic.
If in asserting rights or in repelling wrongs war should
come upon us, our regular force should be increased
to an extent proportioned to the emergency,
and our present small Army is a nucleus around
which such force could be formed and embodied.
But for the purposes of defense under
ordinary circumstances we must rely
upon the electors of the country.
Those by whom and for whom the Government was
instituted and is supported will constitute its protection in
the hour of danger as they do its check in the hour of safety.
But it is obvious that the militia system is imperfect.
Much time is lost, much unnecessary expense incurred,
and much public property wasted
under the present arrangement.
Little useful knowledge is gained by the musters
and drills as now established, and the whole subject
evidently requires a thorough examination.
Whether a plan of classification remedying these defects
and providing for a system of instruction might not be
adopted is submitted to the consideration of Congress.
The Constitution has vested in the General Government
an independent authority upon the subject of the militia
which renders its action essential to the establishment or
improvement of the system, and I recommend the matter
to your consideration in the conviction that the state of this
important arm of the public defense requires your attention.
I am happy to inform you that the wise and humane policy
of transferring from the eastern to the western side
of the Mississippi the remnants of our aboriginal tribes,
with their own consent and upon just terms,
has been steadily pursued and is approaching,
I trust, its consummation.
By reference to the report of the Secretary of War
and to the documents submitted with it you will
see the progress which has been made since
your last session in the arrangement of the
various matters connected with our Indian relations.
With one exception every subject involving any question
of conflicting jurisdiction or of peculiar difficulty has been
happily disposed of, and the conviction evidently gains
ground among the Indians that their removal to the country
assigned by the United States for their permanent residence
furnishes the only hope of their ultimate prosperity.
With that portion of the Cherokees, however,
living within the State of Georgia it has been found
impracticable as yet to make a satisfactory adjustment.
Such was my anxiety to remove all the grounds of
complaint and to bring to a termination the difficulties
in which they are involved that I directed the very
liberal propositions to be made to them which
accompany the documents herewith submitted.
They cannot but have seen in these offers the evidence
of the strongest disposition on the part of the
Government to deal justly and liberally with them.
An ample indemnity was offered for their present
possessions, a liberal provision for their future
support and improvement, and full security
for their private and political rights.
Whatever difference of opinion may have prevailed
respecting the just claims of these people,
there will probably be none respecting the liberality
of the propositions, and very little respecting
the expediency of their immediate acceptance.
They were, however, rejected, and thus the
position of these Indians remains unchanged,
as do the views communicated in my message
to the Senate of February 22, 1831.
I refer you to the annual report of the Secretary
of the Navy, which accompanies this message,
for a detail of the operations of that branch
of the service during the present year.
Besides the general remarks on some of the transactions
of our Navy presented in the view which has been taken
of our foreign relations, I seize this occasion to invite
to your notice the increased protection which it has afforded
to our commerce and citizens on distant seas
without any augmentation of the force in commission.
In the gradual improvement of its pecuniary concerns,
in the constant progress in the collection of materials
suitable for use during future emergencies, and in the
construction of vessels and the buildings necessary
to their preservation and repair, the present state of
this branch of the service exhibits the fruits of that vigilance
and care which are so indispensable to its efficiency.
Various new suggestions, contained in the annexed report,
as well as others heretofore submitted to Congress, are
worthy of your attention, but none more so than that urging
the renewal for another term of six years of the general
appropriation for the gradual improvement of the Navy.
From the accompanying report of the Postmaster-General
you will also perceive that that Department continues
to extend its usefulness without impairing its resources
or lessening the accommodations which it affords
in the secure and rapid transportation of the mail.
I beg leave to call the attention of Congress to the views
heretofore expressed in relation to the mode of choosing
the President and Vice-President of the United States,
and to those respecting the tenure of office generally.
Still impressed with the justness of those views
and with the belief that the modifications suggested
on those subjects if adopted will contribute to the
prosperity and harmony of the country, I earnestly
recommend them to your consideration at this time.
I have heretofore pointed out defects
in the law for punishing official frauds,
especially within the District of Columbia.
It has been found almost impossible to bring notorious
culprits to punishment, and according to a decision
of the court for this District, a prosecution is barred by
a lapse of two years after the fraud has been committed.
It may happen again, as it has already happened,
that during the whole two years all the evidences of the
fraud may be in the possession of the culprit himself.
However proper the limitation may be in relation to private
citizens, it would seem that it ought not to commence
running in favor of public officers until they go out of office.
The judiciary system of the
United States remains imperfect.
Of the nine Western and Southwestern States
three only enjoy the benefits of a circuit court.
Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee are
embraced in the general system,
but Indiana, Illinois, Missouri, Alabama,
Mississippi, and Louisiana have only district courts.
If the existing system be a good one,
why should it not be extended?
If it be a bad one, why is it suffered to exist?
The new States were promised equal rights
and privileges when they came into the Union,
and such are the guaranties of the Constitution.
Nothing can be more obvious than the obligation
of the General Government to place all the States
on the same footing in relation to the administration of
justice, and I trust this duty will be neglected no longer.
On many of the subjects to which your attention
is invited in this communication it is a source of
gratification to reflect that the steps to be now adopted
are uninfluenced by the embarrassments entailed upon
the country by the wars through which it has passed.
In regard to most of our great interests we may consider
ourselves as just starting in our career, and after a
salutary experience about to fix upon a permanent basis
the policy best calculated to promote the happiness
of the people and facilitate their progress toward
the most complete enjoyment of civil liberty.
On an occasion so interesting and important in our history,
and of such anxious concern to the friends of freedom
throughout the world, it is our imperious duty to lay aside
all selfish and local considerations and be guided by a
lofty spirit of devotion to the great principles
on which our institutions are founded.
That this Government may be so administered as to
preserve its efficiency in promoting and securing these
general objects should be the only aim of our ambition,
and we cannot, therefore, too carefully examine its
structure, in order that we may not mistake its powers
or assume those which the people have reserved to
themselves or have preferred to assign to other agents.
We should bear constantly in mind the fact that the
considerations which induced the framers of the Constitution
to withhold from the General Government the power to
regulate the great mass of the business and concerns
of the people have been fully justified by experience,
and that it cannot now be doubted that the genius of
all our institutions prescribes simplicity and economy
as the characteristics of the reform which is yet
to be effected in the present and future execution
of the functions bestowed upon us by the Constitution.
Limited to a general superintending power to maintain
peace at home and abroad, and to prescribe laws
on a few subjects of general interest not calculated
to restrict human liberty, but to enforce human rights,
this Government will find its strength and its glory
in the faithful discharge of these plain and simple duties.
Relieved by its protecting shield from the fear of war
and the apprehension of oppression, the free enterprise
of our citizens, aided by the State sovereignties,
will work out improvements and ameliorations
which cannot fail to demonstrate that the great truth
that the people can govern themselves is not only realized
in our example, but that it is done by a machinery in
government so simple and economical as scarcely to be felt.
That the Almighty Ruler of the Universe may so direct
our deliberations and overrule our acts as to make us
instrumental in securing a result so dear to mankind
is my most earnest and sincere prayer.7Notes
1. Autobiography of Martin Van Buren 2:625 quoted in Andrew Jackson
by Sean Wilentz, p. 81.
2. Messages and Papers of the Presidents 1789-1908, Volume II,
ed. James D. Richardson, p. 576-591.
3. Speech of the Hon. Daniel Webster, in the Senate of the United States
on the President's veto of the Bank Bill, July 11, 1832, p. 31.
4. Documents of American History ed. Henry Steele Commager, p. 268.
5. Ibid., p. 264.
6. Ibid., p. 269.
7. Messages and Papers of the Presidents 1789-1908, Volume II, p. 591-606.Andrew Jackson to 1812
Andrew Jackson & Wars 1813-15
Andrew Jackson & Indian Wars 1816-20
Andrew Jackson 1821-24
Andrew Jackson 1825-28
President Jackson in 1829
President Jackson & Indians 1829-36
President Jackson in 1830
President Jackson in 1831
Jackson’s Veto & Banks in 1832
President Jackson in 1833
President Jackson in 1834
President Jackson in 1835
President Jackson in 1836
Andrew Jackson 1837-45
Andrew Jackson Summary & Evaluation
copyright 2025 by Sanderson Beck
This work has not yet been published as a book;
all the chapters are free in this website.George Washington
John Adams
Thomas Jefferson
James Madison 1751-1808 & 1817-36
President Madison 1809-17
James Monroe to 1811 Part 1
James Monroe 1812-25 Part 2
John Quincy Adams
Andrew Jackson
Woodrow Wilson
Herbert Hoover
Wisdom Bible
Uniting Humanity
History of Peace Volume 1
History of Peace Volume 2
Nonviolent Action Handbook
The Good Message of Jesus the Christ
Living In God's Holy Thoughts (LIGHT)
ETHICS OF CIVILIZATION Index
World Chronology