obligations of conscience and the Constitution.  I readily admit that whilst the qualified veto with which the Chief Magistrate is invested should be regarded and was intended by the wise men who made it a part of the Constitution as a great conservative principle of our system, without the exercise of which on important occasions a mere representative majority might urge the Government in its legislation beyond the limits fixed by its framers or might exert its just powers too hastily or oppressively, yet it is a power which ought to be most cautiously exerted, and perhaps never except in a case eminently involving the public interest or one in which the oath of the President, acting under his convictions, both mental and moral, imperiously requires its exercise.  In such a case he has no alternative.  He must either exert the negative power intrusted to him by the Constitution chiefly for its own preservation, protection, and defense or commit an act of gross moral turpitude.  Mere regard to the will of a majority must not in a constitutional republic like ours control this sacred and solemn duty of a sworn officer.  The Constitution itself I regard and cherish as the embodied and written will of the whole people of the United States.  It is their fixed and fundamental law, which they unanimously prescribe to the public functionaries, their mere trustees and servants.  This their will and the law which they have given us as the rule of our action have no guard, no guaranty of preservation, protection, and defense, but the oaths which it prescribes to the public officers, the sanctity with which they shall religiously observe those oaths, and the patriotism with which the people shall shield it by their own sovereign will, which has made the Constitution supreme.  It must be exerted against the will of a mere representative majority or not at all.  It is alone in pursuance of that will that any measure can reach the President, and to say that because a majority in Congress have passed a bill he should therefore sanction it is to abrogate the power altogether and to render its insertion in the Constitution a work of absolute supererogation.  The duty is to guard the fundamental will of the people themselves from (in this case; I admit, unintentional) change or infraction by a majority in Congress; and in that light alone do I regard the constitutional duty which I now most reluctantly discharge.  Is this bill now presented for my approval or disapproval such a bill as I have already declared could not receive my sanction?  Is it such a bill as calls for the exercise of the negative power under the Constitution?  Does it violate the Constitution by creating a national bank to operate per se over the Union?  Its title, in the first place, describes its general character.  It is “an act to provide for the better collection, safe-keeping, and disbursement of the public revenue by means of a corporation to be styled the Fiscal Corporation of the