several of the states; for, in the bill afterwards signed by Washington fractions were in fact represented. Opposite ground was taken by Messrs. Marcy, Frelinghuysen, and others, who maintained, that Mr. Webster's bill was liable to the same objection as that rejected in 1792; and the opinion of Mr. Madison was cited by Mr. Marcy, in support of his argument. Mr. Frelinghuysen also brought the proposed amendment to the test of Washington's objections; the first and principal one of which was, 66 that there was no one proportion or division which, applied to the respective numbers of the states, would yield the number and allotment of representatives proposed by the bill; and the second, not the only substantial difficulty with the president, as some had insisted, but an inference from the former-that “the bill allotted to eight of the states more than one for every 30,000.” After the bill had been returned, congress passed a new bill with a ratio of 33,000, and applied that to the population of each state. Several other senators participated in the discussion. The bill as it came from the house, was finally ordered to a third reading; ayes, 27; noes, 20. Another presidential election was approaching. Gen. Jackson had been designated by his friends in all parts of the union, at an early period after the commencement of his administration, as a candidate for reëlection. Hence a national convention was necessary only to nominate a candidate for vice-president. The convention for that purpose was held at Baltimore, in May, 1832; and Mr. Van Buren was nominated. Probably his rejection by the senate, as minister to England, contributed to the unanimity with which the nomination was made; the friends of the president deeming his election necessary as a means of avenging the dishonor cast upon himself by the rejection of Mr. Van Buren. The opposition had selected Mr. Clay as their candidate. He had been nominated by a convention of national' republicans in December, 1831, with John Sergeant, of Pennsylvania, for vice-president. The anti-masons, whose rise and progress as a political party has been described, supported William Wirt for president, and Amos Ellmaker, of Pennsylvania, for vice-president; who had been nominated by a national convention, also held in Baltimore, in September, 1831. The great body of the anti-masons agreed, in their views of national policy, with the national republicans," the appellation which had been assumed by the opponents of the administration. Mr. Clay, however, being a mason, the anti-masons were unwilling to give him their support. The nomination of Mr. Wirt had not been anticipated. It had been the purpose of the anti-masons to nominate John M'Lean, of Ohio, in the hope of securing the coöperation of the national republicans in his support. Aware that his name would be brought before the convention, he addressed to one of its members a letter, requesting that, as Gen. Jackson, Mr. Clay, and Mr. Calhoun, had all been nominated by their friends in public meetings and otherwise, and as he thought it inexpedient to distract still more the public mind, his name might be withdrawn. And as leading masons among the national republicans had expressed a determination not to form a union with the anti-masons, even though Judge M’Lean were nominated, the selection of another person became necessary. The states represented in the anti-masonic national convention, were Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Ohio, and Indiana. John C. Spencer, of New York, was chosen president of the convention. The convention was in session three days ; having received, before its adjournment, letters of acceptance from both the candidates. The letter of Mr. Wirt was one of great length, stating his former connection with the institution of masonry, and his limited knowledge of its character, and of the obligations said to be assumed by those entering the higher degrees. But it had become manifest, from the trials in the case of Morgan, that these oaths were not considered by those who im. posed and took them, as mere idle words; but that they were viewed as obligations to be practically enforced. This could not, however, be masonry as understood by Washington. The suspicion would be parricide. Nor could he believe, that, where he was best acquainted, intelligent and honorable men, if they had been drawn in to take these shock. ing and impious oaths, could consider them as paramount to their duties to God and their country. He was unwilling to pledge himself to unite in a war of indiscriminate proscription against all who had ever borne the name of mason. The numerous cases of defection from the ranks of the administration party, had inspired some of its opponents with the hope of success, or at least of a bare election of Gen. Jackson. The election, however, showed a different result. Gen. Jackson received of the electoral votes, 219; Mr. Clay, 49; and Mr. Wirt, 7. The 30 Pennsylvania electors voted for William Wilkins, of that state, instead of Mr. Van Buren, for vicepresident; and the 11 votes of South Carolina, were given for John Floyd, of Virginia, and Henry Lee, of Massachusetts. The electoral vote for president, however, was not a true indication of the popular vote, which was less, in the aggregate, than at his first election; some of the states having been carried by small majorities. It was hence inferred that a perfect cordial union of his opponents might have defeated his election. а CHAPTER XLVI. UNITED STATES BANK-BILL VETOED-AFFAIRS OF THE BANK INVESTIGATED. A MEMORIAL, in behalf of the stockholders, was presented, asking for a renewal of the charter of the bank. Among the reasons stated for making the application at so early a date, the memorial says: “Unless the question is decided by the present congress, no definitive action can be expected until within two years of the expiration of the charter-a period before which, in the opinion of your memorialists, it is highly expedient, not merely in reference to the institution itself, but to the interests of the nation, that the determination of congress should be known. Independently of the influence which the bank was designed to possess, and which it necessarily exercises over the state of the currency, by which all the pecuniary transactions of the community are regulated, its own immediate operations are connected intimately with the local business of almost every section of the United States, with the commercial interchanges between the several states, and the intercourse of them all with foreign nations." In the senate, the memorial was referred to å select committee, consisting of Messrs. Dallas, Webster, Ewing, Hayne, and Johnston, of Louisiana. In the house, it was referred to the committee of ways and means, of which Mr. M’Duffie was chairman. A bill was reported in each house ; but that of Mr. Dallas in the senate was the one adopted by both houses. It proposed a renewal for only fifteen years; required the same bonus, ($1,500,000,) to be paid to the government as was required by the charter of 1816. The new bill contained several modifications of the existing charter, some of which Mr. Dallas deemed either unnecessary or injurious; one of which compelled the bank, or any of its branches, to receive in payment of balances due it by state banks, the notes issued by, and payable at any other branch. The constitutional power to establish a bank, Mr. Dallas said, had been asserted and sustained, for so many years, by every department of the government, and had been so long acquiesced in by the people, that he considered that matter as definitively settled. The report of Mr. M'Duffie, of the house, consisted, chiefly, of his report of 1830; and the bill reported by him provided for continuing the bank for twenty years under its present charter, with some modifications ; one of which was, that the president should appoint one of the directors of each branch; another, that, for the exclusive privileges and benefits conferred by the act, a certain rate of interest (not mentioned in the bill) should be paid upon the government deposits, instead of a specific sum, as a bonus. Congress also reserved the right of revoking the charter after ten years, by giving three years' notice. And the issue of notes at branches where they were not payable, was prohibited. The vote on the final passage of the bill, (that of the senate,) was, in the senate, 28 to 20; in the house, 107 to 85. The bill was sent to the president for his approval; and returned with his objections to the senate, where, on the question of its passage, potwithstanding the veto, the vote was 22 to 19, lacking the constitutional majority necessary to its passage. This exercise of the veto drew upon the president the severe displeasure of the friends of the bank, and the highest commendations of its opponents. By the former, his reasons were deemed frivolous and unsatisfactory; by the latter, substantial and unanswerable. The president regarded it as one objection to the renewal of the bank, that the stockholders would immediately be largely benefited by an increase of the price of the stock; and for this gratuity to foreigners and some of our opulent citizens, the act secured no equivalent. The present corporation had long enjoyed the monopoly; and 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, by putting the premium upon the sales into the treasury ? It had been urged in favor of a recharter, that calling in its loans would produce embarrassment and distress. The time allowed to close its concerns was ample; and if it had been well managed, its pressure would be light, and heavy only in case its management had been bad. Another objection was, that a large portion of the stock was held by foreigners. In case of war, should the stock principally have passed into the hands of foreigners, all its operations within would be in aid of the hostile fleets and armies without. The views of the president in relation to the constitutionality of the bank deserve a careful consideration. His conclusions on this subject differ from those of Mr. Madison, who, in 1816, waived his consti. tutional scruples, and subsequently maintained, that precedent, the deci. sion of the supreme court, and the long acquiescence of the people, had settled the constitutionality of the bank. Congress, the president said, had as often decided against, as in favor of a bank. And in the states, the expressions of the legislative, executive, and judicial opinions against the bank had been, probably, to those in its favor, as four to one. Precedent was therefore not in favor of the act. Mere precedent was dangerous authority, except where the acquiescence of the people and the states could be considered as well settled. The opinion of the supreme court, he contended, ought not to control the coördinate authorities of the government. He said: “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. 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." [Appendix, Note E.] * The question of constitutionality was farther discussed; and other objections were presented in the message; to which the reader is referred. The veto of the bank bill was turned to the account of the president's popularity. The veto message was extensively circulated and read, and greatly increased the opposition to the institution. It met general favor among the friends of the administration, except in the state of Pennsylvania, where a strong opposition to the president was created. In Philadelphia, the excitement was intense. A meeting was held in that city, said to have been one of the largest ever assembled in it, composed in great part of the former friends of the president; from whom the presiding officer, and a majority of the subordinate officers, were selected, in order to render the meeting the more imposing. The president and his message were treated with great severity, as appears from the resolutions adopted by the meeting, which was truly an "indignation meeting;" its members declaring that they had read the message with "astonishment, indignation, and alarm." It was pronounced a "discreditable document." Its "language, doctrines, temper, and purposes," gave "additional evidence that the opinions and actions of the president were controlled by the influence of designing men, seeking their own continuance in power, at the sacrifice of the country." His rejection of the bank bill, his assaults upon the principles of protection to American industry, upon the supreme court, and upon the independence of congress, had "severed the ties by which the people of Pennsylvania had been connected with him;" and they declared, "that the reëlection of a president whose official path had been strewed with violated pledges," and who had "wantonly trampled upon the interests of his fellow-citizens, would be a national calamity." He had "shown an utter contempt of the unanimous voice of Pennsylvania, expressed through her legislature and delegation in congress with regard to the bank, the tariff, and the judiciary;" and this they considered ungrateful," as it was to "the active and persevering support of that 16 |