But, Sir, do we not now see that it was time, and high time, to press this bill, and to send it to the President?  Does not the event teach us, that the measure was not brought forward one moment too early?  The time had come when the people wished to know the decision of the administration on the question of the bank?  Why conceal it, or postpone its declaration?  Why, as in regard to the tariff, give out one set of opinions for the North, and another for the South?

An important election is at hand, and the renewal of the bank charter is a pending object of great interest, and some excitement.  Should not the opinions of men high in office, and candidates for re-election, be known on this, as on other important public questions?  Certainly, it is to be hoped that the people of the United States are not yet mere man-worshippers, that they do not choose their rulers without some regard to their political principles, or political opinions.  Were they to do this, it would be to subject themselves voluntarily to the evils which the hereditary transmission of power, independent of all personal qualifications, inflicts on other nations.  They will judge their public servants by their acts, and continue or withhold their confidence, as they shall think it merited, or as they shall think it forfeited.  In every point of view, therefore, the moment had arrived, when it became the duty of Congress to come to a result, in regard to this highly important measure.  The interests of the government, the interests of the people, the clear and indisputable voice of public opinion, all called upon Congress to act without further loss of time.  It has acted, and its act has been negatived by the President; and this result of the proceedings here places the question, with all its connections and all its incidents, fully before the people.

Before proceeding to the constitutional question, there are some other topics, treated in the message, which ought to be noticed.  It commences by an inflamed statement of what it calls the “favor” bestowed upon the original bank by the government, or, indeed, as it is phrased, the “monopoly of its favor and support”; and through the whole message all possible changes are rung on the “gratuity,” the “exclusive privileges,” and “monopoly,” of the bank charter.  Now, Sir, the truth is, that the powers conferred on the bank are such, and no others, as are usually conferred on similar institutions.  They constitute no monopoly, although some of them are of necessity, and with propriety, exclusive privileges.  “The original act,” says the message, “operated as a gratuity of many millions to the stockholders.”  What fair foundation is there for this remark?  The stockholders received their charter, not gratuitously, but for a valuable consideration in money, prescribed by Congress, and actually paid.  At some times the stock has been above par, at other times below par, according to prudence in management,