" But hear the General's
own words. Here they are, taken from his veto message:
"It is maintained by the advocates of the bank that its
constitutionality, in all its features, ought to be considered as settled
by precedent, and by the decision of the Supreme Court. To this
conclusion I cannot assent. Mere precedent is a dangerous source of
authority, and should not be regarded as deciding questions of
constitutional power, except where the acquiescence of the people and the
States can be considered as well settled. So far from this being the case
on this subject, an argument against the bank might be based on
precedent. One Congress, in 1791, decided in favor of a bank; another, in
1811, decided against it. One Congress, in 1815, decided against a bank;
another, in 1816, decided in its favor. Prior to the present Congress,
therefore, the precedents drawn from that course were equal. If we resort
to the States, the expressions of legislative, judicial, and executive
opinions against the bank have been probably to those in its favor as
four to one. There is nothing in precedent, therefore, which, if its
authority were admitted, ought to weigh in favor of the act before me.
Pages:
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361