of its capital, because the state of her commerce and manufac tures does not call for the employment of more capital than she possesses. She does not need it, in a peculiar degree, certainly, as any restraint or corrective on her own paper currency. Her banks are as well conducted as those of other States. But she has a common interest in the continuance of a useful institution. She has an interest in the wise and successful administration of the government, in all its departments. She is interested that the general currency of the country should be maintained in a safe and healthy state. She derives a benefit with others (I believe it a great benefit) from the facility of exchanges in internal commerce, which the bank affords. This is the sum of her motives. For these reasons, she is willing that the bank should be continued. But if the matter should be otherwise determined, however much she might regret it on general and public grounds, she certainly does not apprehend from that result such inconveniences to her own citizens as may and must fall, so far as I can see, on some others.

Mr. President, I will take leave of the subject for the present, with a remark which I think is due from me. For some years past, I have not been inattentive to the general operations of the bank, or to their influence on the public interests and the convenient administration of the government; and I take the occasion to say, with sincerity and cheerfulness, that, during that period, its affairs have been conducted, in my opinion, with fidelity, as well towards the government as towards its own stockholders; and that it has sought the accomplishment of the public purposes designed by its institution with distinguished ability and distinguished success.

FURTHER REMARKS ON THE BANK OF THE UNITED STATES, MADE IN THE SENATE ON THE 28TH OF MAY, 1832.

THE question being on the amendment offered by Mr. Moore of Alabama, proposing,

"First, That the bank shall not establish or continue any office of discount or deposit, or branch bank, in any State, without the consent and approbation of the State;

"Second, That all such offices and branches shall be subject to taxation, according to the amount of their loans and issues, in like manner as other banks or other property shall be liable to taxation" ";Mr. Webster spoke as follows:

I trust, Sir, the Senate will not act on these propositions without fully understanding their bearing and extent. For myself, I look upon the two parts of the amendment as substantially of the same character. Each, in my opinion, confers a power in the States to expel the bank at their pleasure; in other words, entirely to defeat the operations, and destroy the capacity for usefulness, of the whole bank. The simple question is, Shall we, by our own act, in the charter itself, give to the States this permission to expel the bank and all its branches from their limits, at their own pleasure? The first part of the amendment gives this permission in express terms; and the latter part gives it in effect, by authorizing the States to tax the loans and issues of the bank, with no effectual limitation. It appears to me idle. to say, that this power may be safely given, because it will not be exercised. It is to be given, I presume, on the supposition that probably some of the States will choose to exercise it; else why is it given at all? And will they not so choose? We have already heard, in the course of this debate, of two cases in which States attempted to exercise a power of this kind, when they did not constitutionally possess it. Two States have taxed the branches, for the avowed purpose of driving them out of their limits, and were prevented from accomplishing this object merely by force of judicial decisions against their right. If, then, these attempts have been made to exercise this power when it was not legally possessed, and against the will of Congress, is there any doubt that it will be exercised when its exercise shall be permitted and invited by the proposed amendment? No doubt, in my mind, the power, if granted, will be exercised, and the main object of continuing the bank will be thus defeated.

I have already said, that the second branch of the amendment is as objectionable and as destructive as the first. I think it so It appears to me to give ample power, by means of taxation, to expel the bank from any State which may choose to expel it. It gives a power of taxation without fixed limits, or any reasonable guards. And a power of taxation without fixed limits,

and without guards, is a power to embarrass, a power to oppress a power to expel, a power to destroy. The States are to be allowed to tax the branches according to the amount of their loans and discounts, in like manner as other banks, or other property in the State, shall be liable to taxation.

Now, Sir, some of the States have no banks. Of course they tax no banks. In other States, the banks pay the State a bonus on their creation, and are not otherwise taxed. In other cases, the State, in effect, itself owns the bank, and a tax on it, there. fore, would be merely nominal. Besides, no State is to be bound to lay this tax as it taxes its own banks. It has an option to tax it in that manner, or as other property is taxed. What other property? It may be as lottery-tickets, gamingtables, or other things which may be deemed fit to be discour aged or suppressed, are taxed. The bank may be classed with other nuisances, and driven out or put down by taxation. All this is perfectly within the scope of the amendment. The license is broad enough to authorize any thing which may be designed or wished.

Now, Sir, I doubt exceedingly our power to adopt this amendment, and I pray the deliberate consideration of the Senate in regard to this point. In the first place, let me ask, What is the constitutional ground on which Congress created this corporation, and on which we now propose to continue it? There is no express authority to create a bank, or any other corporation, given to us by the Constitution. The power is derived by implication. It has been exercised, and can be exercised, only on the ground of a just necessity. It is to be maintained, if at all, on the allegation, that the establishment of a national bank is a just and necessary means for carrying on the government, and executing the powers conferred on Congress by the Constitution. On this ground, Congress has established this bank, and on this it is now proposed to be continued. And it has already been judicially decided, that, Congress having established a bank for these purposes, the Constitution of the United States prohibits the States from taxing it. Observe, Sir, it is the Constitution, not the law, which lays this prohibition on the States. The charter of the bank does not declare that the States shall not tax it. It says not one word on that subject. The restraint is imposed, not by Congress, but by a higher authority, the Con

stitution. Now, Sir, I ask how we can relieve the States from this constitutional prohibition. It is true, that this prohibition is not imposed in express terms; but it results from the general provisions of the Constitution, and has been judicially decided to exist in full force. This is a protection, then, which the Constitution of the United States, by its own force, holds over this institution, which Congress has deemed necessary to be created in order to carry on the government, so soon as Congress, exercising its own judgment, has chosen to create it. Can we throw off from this government this constitutional protection? I think it clear we cannot. We cannot repeal the Constitution. We cannot say that every power, every branch, every institution, and every law of this government shall not have all the force, all the sanction, and all the protection, which the Constitution gives it.

By the Constitution, every law of Congress is finally to be considered, and its construction ultimately settled, by the Supreme Court of the United States. These very acts before referred to, taxing the banks, were held valid by some of the judicatures of the States, but were finally pronounced unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States; and this, not by force of any words in the charter, but by force of the Constitution itself. I ask whether it is competent for us to reverse this provision of the Constitution, and to say that the laws of Congress shall receive their ultimate construction from the State courts. Again, the Constitution gives Congress a right to lay duties of impost, and it prohibits the exercise of any such power by the States. Now it so happens, that the national treasury is much better supplied than the treasuries of the States. It might be thought very convenient that a part of the receipts at the custom-houses should be received by the States. But will any man say that Congress could now authorize the States to lay and collect imposts under any restrictions or limitations whatever? No one will pretend it. That would be to make a new partition of power between this government and the State governments. Mr. Madison has very correctly observed, that the assent of the States cannot confer a new power on Congress, except in those cases especially provided in the Constitution. This is very true, and it is equally true that the States cannot obtain a new power by the consent of Congress, against the

prohibition of the Constitution, except in those cases which are expressly so provided for in the Constitution itself. These reasons, Sir, lead me to think that, if, for purposes con nected with the beneficial administration of the government, we deem it necessary to continue this corporation, we are not at liberty to repeal any protection, or any immunity, with which the Constitution surrounds it. We cannot give to a law of the United States less than its constitutional effect. The Constitution says, that every such law, passed in pursuance of the Constitution, shall be paramount to any State law. We cannot enact that it shall not be so; for that would be so far to repeal the Constitution.

Allow me now, Mr. President, to inquire on what ground it is that the States claim this power of taxation. They do not claim it as a power to tax all property of their own citizens. This they possess, without denial or doubt. Every stockholder in the bank is liable to be taxed for his property therein, by the State of which he is a citizen. This right is exercised, I believe, by all the States which lay taxes on money at interest, income, and other subjects of that kind. It is, then, not that they may be authorized to tax the property of their own citizens. Nor is it because any State does not participate in the advantage of the premium, or bonus, paid by the bank to government for the charter. That sum goes into the treasury for the general good of all. Nor can the claim be sustained, nor, indeed, is it asserted, on the strength of the mere circumstance that a branch, or an office, is established in a State. Such office or branch is but an agency. It is no body politic or corporate. It has no legal existence of itself. It is but an agent of the general corporation. That these agents have their residence or place of business in a particular State, is not of itself the foundation of any claim. But, according to the language of the amendment, the ground of this claim to tax is evidently the loans and issues; and these loans and issues, properly speaking, are the loans and discounts of the bank. The office, as an agent, conducts the arrangements, it is true; but the notes which are issued are notes of the bank, and the debts created are debts due to the bank. The circulation is the circulation of the bank. Now the truth is, what the States claim, or what this amendment proposes to give them, is a right to tax the circulation of