The bank was called by our name, we were stockholders to the amount of seven millions of dollars, and we were no farther bound to the payment of the debts of that bank than any individual owning the same amount of stock, and the very moment we sold the stock we were not interested in the bank to the amount of one cent.

The cases put by the senator to illustrate his argument, prove that the name of this bank has misled him.

He says, if a man forges a note or obligation upon the Treasurer of the United States, he could be punished for forgery, &c.

Suppose I yield that he could, why would he be thus punishable by an act of Congress? It would be because the Treasurer is an officer of the United States, and because, if the forged note or obligation were genuine, the United States must pay the money out of the Treasury.

The persons this bill intends to punish, are not our officers, our agents, or our trustees; nor are the United States, either legally or morally, bound to pay one dollar to redeem these notes,

The notes, if re-issued, are thus dealt with, by the officers, the agents, or trustees of the bank, in which we have no interest whatever, the United States having sold the whole amount of their stock to the bank chartered by Pennsylvania,

I think if the honorable senator will re-consider the opinions he has advanced, and give them an application to the facts as they really exist, he will be satisfied he is maintaining a doctrine too extravagant to be seriously insisted on by any one.

The argument of the honorable senator from Connecticut (Mr. Niles), is by far more plausible than anything I have heard.

It is this in substance, that we cannot now inquire whether Congress had the power to charter this bank or not. It was chartered, these notes were made in virtue of a power conferred by the charter, and it is our duty to see that society is not defrauded by means of our creation.

If there were no other means of checking the mischief but by our legis lation, the necessity of the case would make a man strain hard to find some source from which he could have power to compel those who are trustees to cancel those notes as fast as they are lifted by them. But there is no sort of necessity for our legislation to check this mischief.

"How are the facts?

By the charter of 1816, the bank had twenty years, within which to do business; they expired on the 3d March, 1836. The bank was to have two additional years within which to wind up its concerns; they expired the 3d March, 1838.

Before the expiration of the twenty years, the State of Pennsylvania gave to the stockholders, with the exception of the United States, a new charter, and the old stockholders transferred to this new bank all their

funds in trust to wind up their concerns; in other words, in trust to collect all the debts due to the old bank, and to pay all the debts it owed.

Now I am very clear in the opinion that whenever the trustee, with the funds of the old bank, lifted any of its notes, it was a duty to cancel them, and if, instead of doing so, the trustee re-issued them, it was a breach of trust, and upon an application to a court of chancery, by any one having an interest, I have no doubt a decree would be made to restrain the re-issue, and to compel the trustee to cancel the notes as fast as lifted with the trust funds.

Where then is the necessity for Congress to exert the power to check a mischief for which there is a clear, unembarrassed, and adequate remedy? There can be none as I think. There certainly is none to protect any interest of the United States. They never had any interest in this new bank, and they have none in the old, because under an act of Congress our seven millions of stock were sold to the new bank, receipted for, and as fast as the installments have fallen due, according to the contract, they have been punctually paid.

There, therefore, as it seems to me, can be no necessity or propriety in deriving the power claimed from the necessity of the case, and there is the more danger in deriving any power from such source, because every honest mind is easily misled by it, as the exercise of the power is to attain an object honest and praiseworthy.

But, Mr. President, are not all those who assume this ground, and think we have no power to charter a bank, assuming a most dangerous and deceptive ground?

'I cannot but think so, and with great deference I say, it has appeared to me, we are likely to commit error by not separating in our minds things which ought to be kept distinct.

The new bank and the old bear the same name. The stockholders, with the exception of the United States, are the same in both banks. The principal officers in the old are the prominent officers in the new. Hence I have thought we are inclined to view the officers in this State bank as our officers, exercising an authority derived from the United States, when in truth and in fact they derive their power and authority under a State law, and are neither our officers, our trustees, nor our agents. Their whole power and authority over the affairs of the old bank are derived from the contract between the old and the new banks, by which the latter became the trustee of the former.

Is it possible that Congress can derive any power to legislate on this point on the ground of this contract?

Suppose Pennsylvania had never granted this new charter, and the stockholders of the old bank had made just such a contract with the bank of Virginia in virtue of which this latter bank became the trustee, and there was an allegation that this trustee was re-issuing some of the notes

instead of cancelling them. Is any gentleman prepared to maintain that Congress could pass a law to send the trustee to jail, or to have him mulcted in a fine?

Upon principle there is no distinction between the cases.

The claim of power rests upon the ground that as we inferred the power to create the bank, when in truth we had no such power, we may assume any other power we choose to check our own mischief.

I deny this doctrine entirely, and insist that by our own legislation we can never enlarge our own powers.

Here we have created a bank. Will any gentleman affirm that an express power to charter a bank is given in the Constitution? No gentleman can so allege. Even those who claim such a power for Congress have never pretended there is any express grant of power. All agree it is a power that.must be inferred for the sake of carrying out some other express grant of power.

Some have said we have express power to lay and collect taxes, and a bank is necessary as a fiscal agent.

Others that we have a power to coin money, and, therefore Congress has power over the whole currency, and to keep that sound, a bank is essential.

J

While those who deny any such power have denominated it "a vagrant, crawling over the Constitution in search of a soft place on which to make a comfortable settlement."

If we pass this bill, in my judgment, we first assume, by implication, that Congress had the power to charter the bank, and then we infer that Congress can impose whatever pains and penalties it pleases, even unto death, to compel the cancelling of the notes.

These powers, I think, we do not possess, and, therefore, I will not exercise them. I will adhere to what I think the old republican doctrine:

1st. Show an express grant of power to do the principal matter, and then

2d. That the means you wish to employ are the necessary and proper means to be used, and I am ready to act; if I doubt, reasonably, I ought not to act..

Is there any gentleman who hears me who can say there is no reasonable doubt in this case?

After all, if we pass this bill, how is any one to find out what notes were re-issued? There will be no mark put upon them.

We can only believe some have been re-issued, because we see, at an after day, more are in circulation than there were on a former one: but what identical notes they were, society can have no means of knowing.

I now have one or two in my pocket, but I have no knowledge when

or how they were put in circulation, nor had I any means of ascertaining. All I know is that they came to my hands fairly.

Other gentlemen, who condemn my rule of construing the Constitution, may find a satisfactory source from which to derive their power to pass this bill; if so, let them pass it. All I wish, is, that the principles on which I act may be understood.

CHAPTER X.

SENATORIAL

CAREER-INDIAN

TRIBES-EXECUTIVE PATRONAGE

EXPUNGING RESOLUTIONS.

THE condition of the Indian tribes was the principal subject which attracted Judge White's attention, and commanded his most earnest efforts. The history of this race has been one of curious and stirring interest to every reflecting mind, and must awaken sympathy in every feeling heart. Comparatively few years have passed, since they were sole masters of this glorious land, erecting their wigwams at pleasure, and ranging free and untrammelled throughout their vast huntinggrounds. By a By a rapid and singular, but sure process, those tribes which had occupied our extreme Northern territory, were nearly wasted away, or quite exterminated, by the white man, in his lust for gain. Nor was the work to stop here. The same influences were beginning to be felt by our Southern and Western tribes. The heart of every philanthropist recoiled from the view of the future prospects of this miserable race; and a desire to preserve and elevate them gave rise at an early day to the benevolent design of colonizing them in the vast territory west of the Mississippi. The scheme was originated by that profound and organizing statesman, Thomas Jefferson, and had been pursued or attempted without much success by subsequent administrations. It was anew submitted to Congress in the session of 1829-'30, and after a most laborious examination and discussion was sanctioned by that body. Judge White was at that time chairman of the committee on Indian Affairs.' Although he had in early life been engaged in warfare against them, and although he had looked with horror upon the scenes of their savage barbarity, he could not calmly witness their extinction.

- His feelings were all enlisted in the measures for ameliorating their condition. His plans contemplated not merely their preservation from the utter annihilation which so evidently menaced them, but their