Chapter XXXI: Introduction (30)

Mr. SMITH (of South Carolina) observed, that the bill being taken up rather unexpectedly yesterday, gentlemen did not appear prepared to discuss the subject. It therefore was suffered to be read in Committee of the Whole, and passed to the third reading, in his opinion, rather informally; as the members were thereby deprived of giving their sentiments in the usual manner on a bill of the greatest importance. He thought it susceptible of various amendments. [The SPEAKER having observed, that the bill, agreeably to the rules of the House, could not be amended without being recommitted,] Mr. S. moved, that the bill should be recommitted, for the purpose of making sundry alterations, and removing objections which he thought the bill liable to. He then enumerated several objections. Those who are to receive the subscriptions, he said, by the bill, are not obliged to give any bonds for their fidelity. He thought the clause which excludes foreigners from voting by proxy exceptionable; and the time in which subscriptions are to be received, he thought too contracted.

Mr. JACKSON said he was in favor of the motion for a recommitment; but not for the reasons offered by the gentleman from South Carolina. He was opposed to the principle of the bill altogether. He then adverted to the situation of the United States, and observed, that it was so different from that of Great Britain, at the time the Bank was established in that country, that no reason in favor of the institution can be deduced from thence. He adverted to the arguments arising from the facility which banks afford of anticipating the public resources in case of emergency. This idea of anticipations he reprobated, as tending to involve the country in debt, and an endless labyrinth of perplexities. This plan of a National Bank, said he, is calculated to benefit a small part of the United States, the mercantile interest only; the farmers, the yeomanry, will derive no advantage from it; as the bank bills will not circulate to the extremities of the Union. He said he had never seen a bank bill in the State of Georgia, nor will they ever benefit the farmers of that State, or of New Hampshire. He urged that there was no necessity for instituting a new bank. There is one already established in this city, under the style of the Bank of North America. This proposed institution is an infringement of the charter of that bank, which cannot be justified. He urged the unconstitutionality of the plan; called it a monopoly; such a one as contravenes the spirit of the constitution; a monopoly of a very extraordinary nature; a monopoly of the public moneys for the benefit of the corporation to be created. He then read several passages from the _Federalist_, which he said were directly contrary to the assumption of the power proposed by the bill. He hoped, therefore, that it would be recommitted; and he could not help hoping, also, that it would be deferred to the next session.

Mr. LAWRENCE observed, that the friends of the institution proposed had been unjustly charged with precipitating the bill; but, he said, it had long been in the hands of the members; they have had time to consider it; the usual forms have been observed in its progress thus far; and if those who are opposed to the bill did not see proper to come forward with their objections, it surely is their own fault, and the advocates of the bill are not justly chargeable with precipitancy. He then particularly replied to the objections offered by Mr. SMITH, of South Carolina; and after considering them, said, that those objections did not, in his opinion, constitute sufficient reason to induce a recommitment of the bill. He then noticed the constitutional objections of Mr. JACKSON, and said, the Government of the United States is vested by the constitution with a power of borrowing money; and in pursuance of this idea, they have a right to create a capital, by which they may, with greater facility, carry the power of borrowing on any emergency into effect. Under the late Confederation, the Pennsylvania Bank, called the Bank of North America, was instituted. He presumed that it will not be controverted, that the present Government is vested with powers equal to those of the late Confederation. He said, that he had no doubt its operation would benefit, not only the centre, but the extremities also of the Union. The commercial, mechanical, and agricultural interests of the United States are so combined, that one cannot be benefited without benefiting the other. He concluded by observing, that he thought the Legislature of the United States could not better answer the purposes of their appointment, than by passing this bill. He hoped, therefore, that it would not be recommitted, but that it would now pass.

Mr. LEE observed, that having been confined by sickness, he was precluded from attending the House yesterday; but sick as he was, had he supposed that there was a prospect of a bill of such magnitude and importance passing without a discussion of its principles, he certainly would have attended, and offered his objections to various parts of it, which he thought very exceptionable. He hoped, therefore, it would now be recommitted; that a bill which is so unequal and so partial may undergo a thorough discussion.

Mr. TUCKER was in favor of a recommitment. He acknowledged that those who had their objections to the bill were certainly blamable for not coming forward with them yesterday. He then stated sundry objections to the bill. The time allowed to receive the subscriptions, he said, is too short, and will benefit those only in the vicinity of the Bank. The clause which authorizes the loaning of one hundred thousand dollars to the Government, without express provision by law, he thought exceptionable, as the Executive will be able, by this means, to borrow at any time, without being authorized, to almost any amount, of the Bank. The loan of two millions of dollars by the United States to the Bank, he objected to; as diverting that sum from the particular object for which it was borrowed. There is no appropriation, he said, of the half yearly dividend of profits accruing to the United States, which, he observed, was a very essential defect. Mr. T. stated other objections, as reasons for a recommitment.

Mr. WILLIAMSON was in favor of the recommitment, to give those who say they have not had an opportunity of offering their objections, time to do it; and if the motion be not agreed to, he should not give his vote for the bill. He then adverted to the objections deduced from the constitution, and explained the clause respecting monopolies as referring altogether to commercial monopolies.

Mr. SHERMAN objected to the recommitment. He said, that though the bill could not be amended without its being recommitted, yet it was open to discussion and objection previous to taking a vote on its passage. He did not think the objections offered afforded sufficient reasons for a recommitment. He replied to the observations offered by several gentlemen who had spoken in favor of the motion.

Mr. GERRY expressed his surprise at the observations of gentlemen who had neglected to offer their objections to the bill before, and said it could only be imputed to their own neglect, and not to any precipitancy on the part of the friends of the bill. Mr. G. noticed several objections which had been offered, and said, if nothing more important could be offered, he thought it would be unjustifiable in the House to go into a committee.

Mr. MADISON observed, that at this moment it was not of importance to determine how it has happened that the objections which several gentlemen now say they have to offer against the bill were not made at the proper time. It is sufficient for them, if the candor of the House should lead them now to recommit the bill, that in a Committee of the Whole they may have an opportunity of offering their objections.

Mr. AMES replied to Mr. MADISON. He said, he did not conceive that the appeal now made to the candor of the House was in point. The gentlemen who object to the bill had an opportunity to offer their objections; the customary forms have been attended to; and the whole question for the recommitment turns on the force of the objections which are now offered to the general principles of the bill altogether. The candor of the House, he conceived, was entirely out of the question, and therefore not to be appealed to; but the justice due to their constituents in the proper discharge of the duty reposed in them. He said, it appeared to him absurd to go into Committee of the Whole to determine whether the bill is constitutional or not. If it is unconstitutional, that amounts to a rejection of it altogether.

Mr. MADISON thought there was the greatest propriety in discussing a constitutional question in Committee of the Whole.

Mr. STONE and Mr. GILES were in favor of the recommitment. They objected to the unconstitutionality of the bill, and to several of its particular clauses.

Mr. VINING said, he thought it was a subject of congratulation that the bill was in its present situation; it had happily passed to the third reading without that tedious discussion which bills usually receive. The subject has been a considerable time before the House, and gentlemen have had time to contemplate it. The bill is now in the stage to which gentlemen very usually reserve themselves to state their objections at large, and he hoped they would now do it. He was not perfectly satisfied as to the constitutional point. He therefore hoped gentlemen would state their objections, that those who are satisfied on that point may offer their reasons.

Mr. BOUDINOT stated the process of the business yesterday. He observed that he had then the honor to be in the chair. He had read the bill very distinctly and deliberately, with proper pauses; he thought that the fullest opportunity had been offered for gentlemen to come forward with their objections. He was opposed to the recommitment, as it would, he feared, issue in a defeat of the bill this session. He had one difficulty, however, respecting the unconstitutionality of the bill, which he hoped to have removed; and he hoped that a full discussion of its general principles would take place.

The motion for a recommitment was lost, as follows:

YEAS.--Messrs. Ashe, Baldwin, Bloodworth, Bourne, Brown,
Burke, Carroll, Contee, Gale, Grout, Giles, Jackson, Lee,
Madison, Mathews, Moore, Parker, Smith, (of Maryland,)
Smith, (of South Carolina,) Stone, Tucker, White, and
Williamson--23.

NAYS.--Messrs. Ames, Benson, Boudinot, Cadwalader, Clymer,
Fitzsimons, Floyd, Foster, Gerry, Gilman, Goodhue, Hartley,
Hathorn, Heister, Huntington, Lawrence, Leonard, Livermore,
Muhlenberg, Partridge, Rensselaer, Schureman, Scott, Seney,
Sherman, Sylvester, Sinnickson, Steele, Sturges, Thatcher,
Trumbull, Vining, Wadsworth, and Wynkoop--34.

WEDNESDAY, February 2.

_Bank of the United States._

The House resumed the consideration of the bill sent from the Senate to incorporate the subscribers to the Bank of the United States.

The bill being on its passage,

Mr. MADISON began with a general review of the advantages and disadvantages of banks. The former he stated to consist in, first, the aid they afford to merchants, who can thereby push their mercantile operations further with the same capital. Second, The aids to merchants in paying punctually the customs. Third, Aids to the Government in complying punctually with its engagements, when deficiencies or delays happen in the revenue. Fourth, In diminishing usury. Fifth, In saving the wear of gold and silver kept in the vaults, and represented by notes. Sixth, In facilitating occasional remittances from different places where notes happen to circulate.

The effect of the proposed Bank, in raising the value of stock, he thought had been greatly overrated. It would no doubt raise that of the stock subscribed into the Bank; but could have little effect on stock in general, as the interest on it would remain the same, and the quantity taken out of the market would be replaced by bank stock.

The principal disadvantages consisted in, first, banishing the precious metals, by substituting another medium to perform their office. This effect was inevitable. It was admitted by the most enlightened patrons of banks, particularly by _Smith on the Wealth of Nations_. The common answer to the objection was, that the money banished was only an exchange for something equally valuable that would be imported in return. He admitted the weight of this observation in general; but doubted whether, in the present habits of this country, the returns would not be in articles of no permanent use to it.

Second. Exposing the public and individuals to all the evils of a run on the Bank, which would be particularly calamitous in so great a country as this, and might happen from various causes, as false rumors, bad management of the institution, an unfavorable balance of trade from short crops, &c.

It was proper to be considered, also, that the most important of the advantages would be better obtained by several banks, properly distributed, than by a single one. The aids to commerce could only be afforded at or very near the seat of the Bank. The same was true of aids to merchants in the payment of customs. Anticipations of the Government would also be most convenient at the different places where the interest of the debt was to be paid. The case in America was different from that in England: the interest there was all due at one place, and the genius of the Monarchy favored the concentration of wealth and influence at the metropolis.

He thought the plan liable to other objections. It did not make so good a bargain for the public as was due to its interests. The charter to the Bank of England had been granted for eleven years only, and was paid for by a loan to the Government on terms better than could be elsewhere got. Every renewal of the charter had, in like manner, been purchased; in some instances, at a very high price. The same had been done by the banks of Genoa, Naples, and other like banks of circulation. The plan was unequal to the public creditors; it gave an undue preference to the holders of a particular denomination of the public debt, and to those at and within reach of the seat of Government. If the subscriptions should be rapid, the distant holders of evidences of debt would be excluded altogether.

In making these remarks on the merits of the bill, he had reserved to himself the right to deny the authority of Congress to pass it. He had entertained this opinion from the date of the constitution. His impression might, perhaps, be the stronger, because he well recollected that a power to grant charters of incorporation had been proposed in the General Convention and rejected.

Is the power of establishing an incorporated bank among the powers vested by the constitution in the Legislature of the United States? This is the question to be examined.

After some general remarks on the limitations of all political power, he took notice of the peculiar manner in which the Federal Government is limited. It is not a general grant, out of which particular powers are excepted; it is a grant of particular powers only, leaving the general mass in other hands. So it had been understood by its friends and its foes, and so it was to be interpreted.

As preliminaries to a right interpretation, he laid down the following rules:

An interpretation that destroys the very characteristic of the Government cannot be just.

Where a meaning is clear, the consequences, whatever they may be, are to be admitted--where doubtful, it is fairly triable by its consequences.

In controverted cases, the meaning of the parties to the instrument, if to be collected by reasonable evidence, is a proper guide.

Contemporary and concurrent expositions are a reasonable evidence of the meaning of the parties.

In admitting or rejecting a constructive authority, not only the degree of its incidentality to an express authority is to be regarded, but the degree of its importance also; since on this will depend the probability or improbability of its being left to construction.

Reviewing the constitution with an eye to these positions, it was not possible to discover in it the power to incorporate a bank. The only clauses under which such a power could be pretended, are either:

1. The power to lay and collect taxes to pay the debts, and provide for the common defence and general welfare; or,

2. The power to borrow money on the credit of the United States; or,

3. The power to pass all laws necessary and proper to carry into execution those powers.

The bill did not come within the first power. It laid no tax to pay the debts, or provide for the general welfare. It laid no tax whatever. It was altogether foreign to the subject.

No argument could be drawn from the terms "common defence and general welfare." The power as to these general purposes was limited to acts laying taxes for them; and the general purposes themselves were limited and explained by the particular enumeration subjoined. To understand these terms in any sense that would justify the power in question, would give to Congress an unlimited power; would render nugatory the enumeration of particular powers; would supersede all the powers reserved to the State Governments. These terms are copied from the Articles of Confederation; had it ever been pretended that they were to be understood otherwise than as here explained?

It had been said, that "general welfare" meant cases in which a general power might be exercised by Congress, without interfering with the powers of the States; and that the establishment of a National Bank was of this sort. There were, he said, several answers to this novel doctrine.

1. The proposed Bank would interfere, so as indirectly to defeat a State Bank at the same place.

2. It would directly interfere with the rights of the States to prohibit as well as to establish Banks, and the circulation of bank notes. He mentioned a law in Virginia actually prohibiting the circulation of notes payable to bearer.

3. Interference with the power of the States was no constitutional criterion of the power of Congress. If the power was not given, Congress could not exercise it; if given, they might exercise it, although it should interfere with the laws, or even the constitution of the States.

4. If Congress could incorporate a bank merely because the act would leave the States free to establish banks also, any other incorporations might be made by Congress. They could incorporate companies of manufacturers, or companies for cutting canals, or even religious societies, leaving similar incorporations by the States, like State Banks, to themselves. Congress might even establish religious teachers in every parish, and pay them out of the Treasury of the United States, leaving other teachers unmolested in their functions. These inadmissible consequences condemned the controverted principle.

The case of the Bank established by the former Congress had been cited as a precedent. This was known, he said, to have been the child of necessity. It never could be justified by the regular powers of the Articles of Confederation. Congress betrayed a consciousness of this in recommending to the States to incorporate the Bank also. They did not attempt to protect the bank notes by penalties against counterfeiters. These were reserved wholly to the authority of the States.

The second clause to be examined is that which empowers Congress to borrow money.

Is this bill to borrow money? It does not borrow a shilling. Is there any fair construction by which the bill can be deemed an exercise of the power to borrow money? The obvious meaning of the power to borrow money, is that of accepting it from, and stipulating payment to those who are able and willing to lend.

To say that the power to borrow involves a power of creating the ability, where there may be the will, to lend, is not only establishing a dangerous principle, as will be immediately shown, but is as forced a construction as to say that it involves the power of compelling the will, where there may be the ability to lend.

The third clause is that which gives the power to pass all laws necessary and proper to execute the specified powers.

Whatever meaning this clause may have, none can be admitted, that would give an unlimited discretion to Congress.

Its meaning must, according to the natural and obvious force of the terms and the context, be limited to means necessary to the end, and incident to the nature of the specified powers.

The clause is in fact merely declaratory of what would have resulted by unavoidable implication, as the appropriate, and, as it were, technical means of executing those powers. In this sense it has been explained by the friends of the constitution, and ratified by the State conventions.

The essential characteristic of the Government, as composed of limited and enumerated powers, would be destroyed, if, instead of direct and incidental means, any means could be used, which, in the language of the preamble to the bill, "might be conceived to be conducive to the successful conducting of the finances, or might be conceived to tend to give facility to the obtaining of loans." He urged an attention to the diffuse and ductile terms which had been found requisite to cover the stretch of power contained in the bill. He compared them with the terms necessary and proper, used in the constitution, and asked whether it was possible to view the two descriptions as synonymous, or the one as a fair and safe commentary on the other.

If, proceeded he, Congress, by virtue of the power to borrow, can create the means of lending, and, in pursuance of these means, can incorporate a bank, they may do any thing whatever creative of like means.

The East India Company has been a lender to the British Government, as well as the Bank, and the South Sea Company is a greater creditor than either. Congress, then, may incorporate similar companies in the United States, and that too not under the idea of regulating trade, but under that of borrowing money.

Private capitals are the chief resources for loans to the British Government. Whatever then may be conceived to favor the accumulation of capitals may be done by Congress. They may incorporate manufacturers. They may give monopolies in every branch of domestic industry.

If, again, Congress, by virtue of the power to borrow money, can create the ability to lend, they may, by virtue of the power to levy money, create the ability to pay it. The ability to pay taxes depends on the general wealth of the society, and this, on the general prosperity of agriculture, manufactures, and commerce. Congress then may give bounties and make regulations on all of these objects.

The States have, it is allowed on all hands, a concurrent right to lay and collect taxes. This power is secured to them, not by its being expressly reserved, but by its not being ceded by the constitution. The reasons for the bill cannot be admitted, because they would invalidate that right; why may it not be conceived by Congress, that a uniform and exclusive imposition of taxes, would not less than the proposed Banks "be conducive to the successful conducting of the national finances, and tend to give facility to the obtaining of revenue, for the use of the Government?"

The doctrine of implication is always a tender one. The danger of it has been felt in other Governments. The delicacy was felt in the adoption of our own; the danger may also be felt if we do not keep close to our chartered authorities.

Mark the reasoning on which the validity of the bill depends! To borrow money is made the end, and the accumulation of capitals implied as the means. The accumulation of capitals is then the end, and a bank implied as the means. The bank is then the end, and a charter of incorporation, a monopoly, capital punishments, &c., implied as the means.

If implications thus remote and thus multiplied, can be linked together, a chain may be formed that will reach every object of legislation, every object within the whole compass of political economy.

The latitude of interpretation required by the bill is condemned by the rule furnished by the constitution itself.

Congress have power "to regulate the value of money;" yet it is expressly added, not left to be implied, that counterfeiters may be punished.

They have the power "to declare war," to which armies are more incident than incorporated banks to borrowing; yet the power "to raise and support armies" is expressly added; and to this again, the express power "to make rules and regulations for the government of armies;" a like remark is applicable to the powers as to the navy.

The regulation and calling out of the militia are more appertinent to war than the proposed Bank to borrowing; yet the former is not left to construction.

The very power to borrow money is a less remote implication from the power of war, than an incorporated monopoly bank from the power of borrowing; yet, the power to borrow is not left to implication.

It is not pretended that every insertion or omission in the constitution is the effect of systematic attention. This is not the character of any human work, particularly the work of a body of men. The examples cited, with others that might be added, sufficiently inculcate, nevertheless, a rule of interpretation very different from that on which the bill rests. They condemn the exercise of any power, particularly a great and important power, which is not evidently and necessarily involved in an express power.

It cannot be denied that the power proposed to be exercised is an important power.

As a charter of incorporation, the bill creates an artificial person, previously not existing in law. It confers important civil rights and attributes which could not otherwise be claimed. It is, though not precisely similar, at least equivalent, to the naturalization of an alien, by which certain new civil characters are acquired by him. Would Congress have had the power to naturalize, if it had not been expressly given?

In the power to make by-laws, the bill delegated a sort of Legislative power, which is unquestionably an act of a high and important nature. He took notice of the only restraint on the by-laws, that they were not to be contrary to the law and the constitution of the Bank, and asked what law was intended; if the law of the United States, the scantiness of their code would give a power never before given to a corporation, and obnoxious to the States, whose laws would then be superseded, not only by the laws of Congress, but by the by-laws of a corporation within their own jurisdiction. If the law intended was the law of the State, then the State might make laws that would destroy an institution of the United States.

The bill gives a power to purchase and hold lands; Congress themselves could not purchase lands within a State "without the consent of its Legislature." How could they delegate a power to others which they did not possess themselves?

It takes from our successors who have equal rights with ourselves, and with the aid of experience will be more capable of deciding on the subject, an opportunity of exercising that right for an immoderate term.

It takes from our constituents the opportunity of deliberating on the untried measure, although their hands are also to be tied by it for the same term.

It involves a monopoly, which affects the equal rights of every citizen.

It leads to a penal regulation, perhaps capital punishments, one of the most solemn acts of sovereign authority.

From this view of the power of incorporation exercised in the bill, it could never be deemed an accessory or subaltern power, to be deduced by implication as a means of executing another power; it was in its nature a distinct, an independent and substantive prerogative, which not being enumerated in the constitution, could never have been meant to be included in it, and not being included could never be rightfully exercised.

He here adverted to a distinction, which he said had not been sufficiently kept in view, between a power necessary and proper for the Government or Union, and a power necessary and proper for executing the enumerated powers. In the latter case, the powers included in the enumerated powers were not expressed, but to be drawn from the nature of each. In the former, the powers composing the Government were expressly enumerated. This constituted the peculiar nature of the Government; no power, therefore, not enumerated could be inferred from the general nature of Government. Had the power of making treaties, for example, been omitted, however necessary it might have been, the defect could only have been lamented, or supplied by an amendment of the constitution.

But the proposed Bank could not even be called necessary to the Government: at most it could be but convenient. Its uses to the Government could be supplied by keeping the taxes a little in advance; by loans from individuals; by the other banks, over which the Government would have equal command; nay greater, as it might grant or refuse to these the privilege (a free and irrevocable gift to the proposed Bank) of using their notes in the Federal revenue.

He proceeded next to the contemporary expositions given to the constitution.

The defence against the charge founded on the want of a bill of rights presupposed, he said, that the powers not given were retained; and that those given were not to be extended by remote implications. On any other supposition, the power of Congress to abridge the freedom of the press, or the rights of conscience, &c., could not have been disproved.

The explanations in the State Conventions all turned on the same fundamental principle, and on the principle that the terms necessary and proper gave no additional powers to those enumerated.

[Here he read sundry passages from the Debates of the Pennsylvania, Virginia, and North Carolina Conventions, showing the grounds on which the constitution had been vindicated by its principal advocates, against a dangerous latitude of its powers, charged on it by its opponents.]

He did not undertake to vouch for the accuracy or authenticity of the publications which he quoted. He thought it probable that the sentiments delivered might, in many instances, have been mistaken, or imperfectly noted; but the complexion of the whole, with what he himself and many others must recollect, fully justified the use he had made of them.

The explanatory declarations and amendments accompanying the ratifications of the several States formed a striking evidence, wearing the same complexion. He referred those who might doubt on the subject, to the several acts of ratification.

The explanatory amendments proposed by Congress themselves, at least, would be good authority with them; all these renunciations of power proceeded on a rule of construction, excluding the latitude now contended for. These explanations were the more to be respected, as they had not only been proposed by Congress, but ratified by nearly three-fourths of the States. He read several of the articles proposed, remarking particularly on the 11th and 12th; the former, as guarding against a latitude of interpretation; the latter, as excluding every source of power not within the constitution itself.

With all this evidence of the sense in which the constitution was understood and adopted, will it not be said, if the bill should pass, that its adoption was brought about by one set of arguments, and that it is now administered under the influence of another set? and this reproach will have the keener sting, because it is applicable to so many individuals concerned in both the adoption and administration.

In fine, if the power were in the constitution, the immediate exercise of it cannot be essential; if not there, the exercise of it involves the guilt of usurpation, and establishes a precedent of interpretation levelling all the barriers which limit the powers of the General Government, and protect those of the State Governments. If the point be doubtful only, respect for ourselves, who ought to shun the appearance of precipitancy and ambition; respect for our successors, who ought not lightly to be deprived of the opportunity of exercising the rights of legislation; respect for our constituents, who have had no opportunity of making known their sentiments, and who are themselves to be bound down to the measure for so long a period; all these considerations require that the irrevocable decision should at least be suspended until another session.

It appeared on the whole, he concluded, that the power exercised by the bill was condemned by the silence of the constitution; was condemned by the rule of interpretation arising out of the constitution; was condemned by its tendency to destroy the main characteristic of the constitution; was condemned by the expositions of the friends of the constitution, whilst depending before the public; was condemned by the apparent intention of the parties which ratified the constitution; was condemned by the explanatory amendments proposed by Congress themselves to the constitution; and he hoped it would receive its final condemnation by the vote of this House.

THURSDAY, February 3.

_Bank of the United States._

The House resumed the consideration of the bill sent from the Senate, to incorporate the subscribers to the Bank of the United States.

A motion was made by Mr. WILLIAMSON to recommit the bill, for the purpose of amending the first section by prolonging the time for receiving subscriptions from October to April; this motion occasioned some debate, and was determined in the negative; the yeas and nays being as follow:

YEAS.--Messrs. Baldwin, Bloodworth, Brown, Burke, Carroll,
Contee, Gale, Giles, Grout, Jackson, Lee, Madison, Mathews,
Moore, Sevier, Smith, (of South Carolina,) Steele, Stone,
Tucker, White, and Williamson--21.

NAYS.--Messrs. Ames, Benson, Boudinot, Bourne, Cadwalader,
Clymer, Fitzsimons, Floyd, Gerry, Gilman, Goodhue, Griffin,
Hartley, Hathorn, Heister, Huntington, Lawrence, Leonard,
Livermore, Muhlenberg, Parker, Partridge, Rensselaer,
Schureman, Scott, Sedgwick, Seney, Sherman, Smith, (of
Maryland,) Sylvester, Sinnickson, Sturges, Thatcher,
Trumbull, Vining, Wadsworth, and Wynkoop--38.

Mr. AMES.--Little doubt remains with respect to the utility of banks. It seems to be conceded within doors and without, that a public bank would be useful to trade, that it is almost essential to revenue, and that it is little short of indispensably necessary in times of public emergency. In countries whose forms of government left them free to choose, this institution has been adopted of choice, and in times of national danger and calamity, it has afforded such aid to Government as to make it appear, in the eyes of the people, a necessary means of self-preservation. The subject, however intricate in its nature, is at last cleared from obscurity. It would not be difficult to establish its principles, and to deduce from its theory such consequences as would vindicate the policy of the measure. But why should we lose time to examine the theory when it is in our power to resort to experience? After being tried by that test, the world has agreed in pronouncing the institution excellent. This new capital will invigorate trade and manufactures with new energy. It will furnish a medium for the collection of the revenues; and if Government should be pressed by a sudden necessity, it will afford seasonable and effectual aid. With all these and many other pretensions, if it was now a question whether Congress should be vested with the power of establishing a bank, I trust that this House and all America would assent to the affirmative.

This, however, is not a question of expediency, but of duty. We are not at liberty to examine which of several modes of acting is entitled to the preference. But we are solemnly warned against acting at all. We are told that the constitution will not authorize Congress to incorporate the subscribers to the bank. Let us examine the constitution, and if that forbids our proceeding, we must reject the bill; though we shall do it with deep regret that such an opportunity to serve our country must be suffered to escape for the want of a constitutional power to improve it.

The gentleman from Virginia considers the opposers of the bill as suffering disadvantage, because it was not debated as bills usually are in the Committee of the Whole. He has prepared us to pronounce a eulogium upon his consistency by informing us that he voted in the old Congress against the Bank of North America, on the ground of his present objection to the constitutionality. He has told us that the meaning of the constitution is to be interpreted by contemporaneous testimony. He was a member of the Convention which formed it, and of course his opinion is entitled to peculiar weight. While we respect his former conduct, and admire the felicity of his situation, we cannot think he sustains disadvantage in the debate. Besides, he must have been prepared with objections to the constitutionality, because he tells us they are of long standing, and had grown into a settled habit of thinking. Why, then, did he suffer the bill to pass the committee in silence? The friends of the bill have more cause to complain of disadvantage; for while he has had time to prepare his objections, they are obliged to reply to them without premeditation.

In making this reply I am to perform a task for which my own mind has not admonished me to prepare. I never suspected that the objections I have heard stated had existence; I consider them as discoveries; and had not the acute penetration of that gentleman brought them to light, I am sure that my own understanding would never have suggested them.

It seems strange, too, that in our enlightened country the public should have been involved in equal blindness. While the exercise of even the lawful powers of Government is disputed, and a jealous eye is fixed on its proceedings, not a whisper has been heard against its authority to establish a bank. Still, however unseasonably, the old alarm of public discontent is sounded in our ears.

Two questions occur; may Congress exercise any powers which are not expressly given in the constitution, but may be deduced by a reasonable construction of that instrument? And, secondly, will such a construction warrant the establishment of the Bank?

The doctrine that powers may be implied which are not expressly vested in Congress has long been a bugbear to a great many worthy persons. They apprehend that Congress, by putting constructions upon the constitution, will govern by its own arbitrary discretion; and therefore that it ought to be bound to exercise the powers expressly given, and those only.

If Congress may not make laws conformably to the powers plainly implied, though not expressed in the frame of Government, it is rather late in the day to adopt it as a principle of conduct. A great part of our two years' labor is lost, and worse than lost to the public, for we have scarcely made a law in which we have not exercised our discretion with regard to the true intent of the constitution. Any words but those used in that instrument will be liable to a different interpretation. We may regulate trade; therefore we have taxed ships, erected light-houses, made laws to govern seamen, &c., because we say that they are the incidents to that power. The most familiar and undisputed acts of legislation will show that we have adopted it as a safe rule of action, to legislate beyond the letter of the constitution.

He proceeded to enforce this idea by several considerations, and illustrated it by various examples. He said, that the ingenuity of man was unequal to providing, especially beforehand, for all the contingencies that would happen. The constitution contains the principles which are to govern in making laws; but every law requires an application of the rule to the case in question. We may err in applying it; but we are to exercise our judgments, and on every occasion to decide according to an honest conviction of its true meaning.

The danger of implied power does not arise from its assuming a new principle; we have not only practised it often, but we can scarcely proceed without it; nor does the danger proceed so much from the extent of the power as from its uncertainty. While the opposers of the Bank exclaim against the exercise of this power by Congress, do they mark out the limits of the power which they will leave to us, with more certainty than is done by the advocates of the Bank? Their rules of interpretation by contemporaneous testimony, the debates of conventions, and the doctrine of substantive and auxiliary powers, will be found as obscure, and of course as formidable, as that which they condemn; they only set up one construction against another.

The powers of Congress are disputed. We are obliged to decide the question according to truth. The negative, if false, is less safe than the affirmative, if true. Why, then, shall we be told that the negative is the safe side? Not exercising the powers we have, may be as pernicious as usurping those we have not. If the power to raise armies had not been expressed in the enumeration of the powers of Congress, it would be implied from other parts of the constitution. Suppose, however, that it were omitted, and our country invaded, would a decision in Congress against raising armies be safer than the affirmative? The blood of our citizens would be shed, and shed unavenged. He thought, therefore, that there was too much prepossession with some against the Bank, and that the debate ought to be considered more impartially, as the negative was neither more safe, certain, nor conformable to our duty than the other side of the question. After all, the proof of the affirmative imposed a sufficient burden, as it is easier to raise objections than to remove them. Would any one doubt that Congress may lend money, that they may buy their debt in the market, or redeem their captives from Algiers? Yet no such power is expressly given, though it is irresistibly implied.

If, therefore, some interpretation of the constitution must be indulged, by what rules is it to be governed? The great end of every association of persons or States is to effect the end of its institution. The matter in debate affords a good illustration: a corporation, as soon as it is created, has certain powers, or qualities, tacitly annexed to it, which tend to promote the end for which it was formed; such as, for example, its individuality, its power to sue and be sued, and the perpetual succession of persons. Government is itself the highest kind of corporation; and from the instant of its formation, it has tacitly annexed to its being, various powers which the individuals who framed it did not separately possess, but which are essential to its effecting the purposes for which it was framed; to declare, in detail, every thing that Government may do could not be performed, and has never been attempted. It would be endless, useless, and dangerous; exceptions of what it may not do are shorter and safer.

Congress may do what is necessary to the end for which the constitution was adopted, provided it is not repugnant to the natural rights of man, or to those which they have expressly reserved to themselves, or to the powers which are assigned to the States. This rule of interpretation seems to be safe, and not a very uncertain one, independently of the constitution itself. By that instrument certain powers are specially delegated, together with all powers necessary or proper to carry them into execution. That construction may be maintained to be a safe one which promotes the good of society, and the ends for which the Government was adopted, without impairing the rights of any man, or the powers of any State.

This, he said, was remarkably true of the Bank; no man could have cause to complain of it; the bills would not be forced upon any one. It is of the first utility to trade. Indeed, the intercourse from State to State can never be on a good footing without a bank, whose paper will circulate more extensively than that of any State bank. Whether the power to regulate trade from State to State will involve that of regulating inland bills of exchange and bank paper, as the instruments of the trade, and incident to the power, he would not pause to examine. This is an injury and wrong which violates the right of another. As the bank is founded on the free choice of those who make use of it, and is highly useful to the people and to Government, a liberal construction is natural and safe. This circumstance creates a presumption in favor of its conformity to the constitution. This presumption is enforced by the necessity of a bank to other governments. The most orderly governments in Europe have banks. They are considered as indispensably necessary; these examples are not to be supposed to have been unnoticed. We are to pay the interest of our debt in thirteen places. Is it possible to transport the revenue from one end of the continent to the other? Nay, a week before the quarter's interest becomes due, transfers will be made which will require double the sum in Boston which was expected. To guard against this danger, an extra sum must be deposited at the different loan offices. This extra sum is not to be had; our revenue is barely equal to the interest due. This imposes an absolute necessity upon the Government to make use of a bank. The answer is, that the State banks will supply this aid. This is risking a good deal to the argument against the Bank; for will they admit the necessity, and yet deny to the Government the lawful and only adequate means for providing for it? Ten of the States have no banks; those who have may abolish theirs, and suffer their charters to expire. But the State banks are insufficient to the purpose; their paper has not a sufficient circulation; of course their capitals are small. Congress is allowed to have complete legislative power over its own finances; and yet without the courtesy of the States it cannot be exercised. This seems to be inconsistent.

If a war should suddenly break out, how is Congress to provide for it? Perhaps Congress would not be sitting; great expenses would be incurred; and they must be instantly provided for. How is this to be done? By taxes? And will the enemy wait till they can be collected? By loans at home? Our citizens would employ their money in war speculations, and they are not individually in a condition to lend a sufficient sum in specie. Or shall we send across the sea for loans? The dispute between England and Spain furnishes an example; the aid of their banks for several millions was prompt and effectual. Or, will you say that Congress might issue paper money? That power, ruinous and fallacious as it is, is deduced from implication, for it is not expressly given. A bank only can afford the necessary aid in time of sudden emergency. If we have not the power to establish it, our social compact is incomplete, we want the means of self-preservation.

I shall, perhaps, be told that necessity is the tyrant's plea. I answer that it is a miserable one when it is urged to palliate the violation of private right. Who suffers by this use of our authority? Not the States, for they are not warranted to establish a National Bank; not individuals, for they will be assisted in trade, and defended from danger by it.

Having endeavored to enforce his argument, by noticing the uses of banks to trade, to revenue, to credit, and, in cases of exigency, he adverted to the authority of our own precedents. Our right to govern the Western Territory is not disputed. It is a power which no State can exercise; it must be exercised, and therefore it resides in Congress. But how does Congress get this power? It is not expressly given in the constitution, but is derived either from the nature of the case, or by implication from the power to regulate the property of the United States. If the power flows from the nature and necessity of the case, it may be demanded, is the renot equal authority for the Bank? If it is derived from the power of Congress to regulate the territory and other property of the United States, and to make all needful rules and regulations concerning it, and for the disposal of it, a strict construction would restrain Congress merely to the management and disposal of property, and of its own property; yet it is plain that more is intended. Congress has accordingly made rules, not only for governing its own property, but the property of the persons residing there. It has made rules which have no relation to property at all--for punishing crimes. In short, it exercises all power in that territory. Nay, it has exercised this very power of creating a corporation. The government of that territory is a corporation; and who will deny that Congress may lawfully establish a bank beyond the Ohio? It is fair to reason by analogy from a power which is unquestionable, to one which is the subject of debate.

He then asked, whether it appeared, on this view of the subject, that the establishment of a National Bank would be a violent misinterpretation of the constitution? He did not contend for an arbitrary, unlimited discretion in the Government to do every thing. He took occasion to protest against such a misconception of his argument. He had noticed the great marks by which the construction of the constitution, he conceived, must be guided and limited; and these, if not absolutely certain, were very far from being arbitrary or unsafe. It is for the House, to judge whether the construction which denies the power of Congress is more definite and safe.

In proving that Congress may exercise powers which are not expressly granted by the constitution, he had endeavored to establish such rules of interpretation, and had illustrated his ideas by such observations as would anticipate, in a considerable degree, the application of his principles to the point in question. Before he proceeded to the construction of the clauses of the constitution which apply to the argument, lie observed that it would be proper to notice the qualities of a corporation, in order to take a more exact view of the controversy.

He adverted to the individuality and the perpetuity of a corporation, and that the property of the individuals should not be liable for the debts of the bank or company. These qualities are not more useful to the corporation than conformable to reason; but Government, it is said, cannot create these qualities. This is the marrow of the argument; for Congress may set up a bank of its own, to be managed as public property, to issue notes which shall be received in all payments at the Treasury, which shall be exchangeable into specie on demand, and which it shall be death to counterfeit. Such a bank would be less safe and useful than one under the direction of private persons; yet the power to establish it is indisputable. If Congress has the authority to do this business badly, the question returns, whether the powers of a corporation, which are essential to its being well done, may be annexed as incident to it. The Bank of New York is not a corporation, yet its notes have credit. Congress may agree with that bank, or with a company of merchants, to take their notes, and to cause all payments to pass through their coffers. Every thing that Government requires, and the bank will perform, may be lawfully done without giving them corporate powers; but to do this well, safely, and extensively, those powers are indispensable. This seems to bring the debate within a very narrow compass.

This led him to consider whether the corporate powers are incidental to those which Congress may exercise by the constitution.

He entered into a discussion of the construction of that clause which empowers Congress to regulate the territory and other property of the United States. The United States may hold property; may dispose of it; they may hold it in partnership; they may regulate the terms of the partnership. One condition may be, that the common stock only shall be liable for the debts of the partnership, and that any purchaser of a share shall become a partner. These are the chief qualities of a corporation. It seems that Congress, having power to make all needful rules and regulations for the property of the United States, may establish a corporation to manage it: without which we have seen that the regulations cannot be either safe or useful; the United States will be the proprietor of one-tenth of the bank stock.