the peer of our friend from Randolph, I shall regard the gentleman from
Coles as decidedly my superior also, and consequently, in the course of
what I shall have to say, whenever I shall have occasion to allude to
that gentleman, I shall endeavor to adopt that kind of court language
which I understand to be due to decided superiority. In one faculty, at
least, there can be no dispute of the gentleman's superiority over me and
most other men, and that is, the faculty of entangling a subject, so that
neither himself, or any other man, can find head or tail to it. Here he
has introduced a resolution embracing ninety-nine printed lines across
common writing paper, and yet more than one half of his opening speech
has been made upon subjects about which there is not one word said in his
resolution.

Though his resolution embraces nothing in regard to the constitutionality
of the Bank, much of what he has said has been with a view to make the
impression that it was unconstitutional in its inception. Now, although
I am satisfied that an ample field may be found within the pale of the
resolution, at least for small game, yet, as the gentleman has traveled
out of it, I feel that I may, with all due humility, venture to follow
him. The gentleman has discovered that some gentleman at Washington city
has been upon the very eve of deciding our Bank unconstitutional, and
that he would probably have completed his very authentic decision, had
not some one of the Bank officers placed his hand upon his mouth, and
begged him to withhold it. The fact that the individuals composing our
Supreme Court have, in an official capacity, decided in favor of the
constitutionality of the Bank, would, in my mind, seem a sufficient
answer to this. It is a fact known to all, that the members of the
Supreme Court, together with the Governor, form a Council of Revision,
and that this Council approved this Bank charter. I ask, then, if the
extra-judicial decision not quite but almost made by the gentleman at