Let us see, Gentlemen, what the train of occurrences has been in regard to our revenue and finances; and when these occurrences are stated, I leave to every man the right to decide for himself whether our present difficulties have or have not arisen from attempts to extend the executive authority.  In giving this detail, I shall be compelled to speak of the late Bank of the United States; but I shall speak of it historically only.  My opinion of its utility, and of the extraordinary ability and success with which its affairs were conducted for many years before the termination of its charter, is well known.  I have often expressed it, and I have not altered it.  But at present I speak of the bank only as it makes a necessary part in the history of events which I wish now to recapitulate.

Mr. Adams commenced his administration in March, 1825.  He had been elected by the House of Representatives, and began his career as President under a powerful opposition.  From the very first day, he was warmly, even violently, opposed in all his measures; and this opposition, as we all know, continued without abatement, either in force or asperity, through his whole term of four years.  Gentlemen, I am not about to say whether this opposition was well or ill founded, just or unjust.  I only state the fact as connected with other facts.  The Bank of the United States, during these four years of Mr. Adams’s administration, was in full operation.  It was performing the fiscal duties enjoined on it by its charter; it had established numerous offices, was maintaining a large circulation, and transacting a vast business in exchange.  Its character, conduct, and manner of administration were all well known to the whole country.

Now there are two or three things worthy of especial notice.  One is, that during the whole of this heated political controversy, from 1825 to 1829, the party which was endeavoring to produce a change of administration in the general government brought no charge of political interference against the Bank of the United States.  If any thing, it was rather a favorite with that party generally.  Certainly, the party, as a party, did not ascribe to it undue attachment to other parties, or to the then existing administration.  Another important fact is, that, during the whole of the same period, those who had espoused the cause of General Jackson, and who sought to bring about a revolution under his name, did not propose the destruction of the bank, or its discontinuance, as one of the objects which were to be accomplished by the intended revolution.  They did not tell the country that the bank was unconstitutional; they did not declare it unnecessary; they did not propose to get along without it, when they should come into power themselves.  If individuals entertained any such purposes, they kept them much to themselves.  The party, as a party, avowed none such.  A third fact, worthy of all notice, is, that during this period there was no complaint about the state of the currency, either by the country generally or by the party then in opposition.