been discussed in that body with considerable animation, and an act had passed the House of Representatives, embracing a discrimination in these duties highly favourable to France. The principle thus adopted, coincided with the general sentiments of the nation, and appeared to be called for, not by this circumstance only, but by the strongest dictates of national gratitude, as well as those of sound policy. This discrimination was rejected, however, by the Senate, and the House of Representatives were obliged, reluctantly, to yield. What it was thus deemed inexpedient to grant, even as a matter of favour or policy, the French government demanded as a right under the treaty of amity and commerce of 1778. The demand was referred to Mr. Jefferson, by the President, and elicited from him the able report to which we have alluded. In this he clearly proved, that the article of the treaty on which the French government founded their claim, was evidently meant to extend no further than to the exemption of the United States from a duty from which other favoured nations were also exempted, and that, in return, France could claim of our government no greater advantages than favoured nations also received of us. That if the article in question had a more extended relation, it applied reciprocally to each government, and would lead to the mutual abolition of duties highly useful to both, and to consequences in which it was hardly conceivable that either party could see its interest. But he appears to incline to the opinion, that if France persisted in claiming this exemption, there were extrinsick causes which might justify, and even render advisable, some relaxation

in her favour; not on the grounds on which it was demanded, but from the effect it would have on the finances, revenue, and commerce of our own country. This report the President immediately submitted to the Senate of the United States.

To aid in the management of the national finances, the Secretary of the Treasury had previously recommended the establishment of a bank; and in February, 1791, an act passed for that purpose. The preamble disclosed the principal reasons for its adoption, declaring "that it would be conducive to the successful conducting of the national finances, give facility to the obtaining of loans for the use of the government in sudden emergencies," and would also be "productive of considerable advantage to trade and industry in general."

The capital stock of the bank was ten millions of dollars; two millions to be subscribed for the benefit of the United States, and the residue by individuals. One fourth of the sums subscribed by individuals was to be paid in gold and silver, and three fourths in the publick debt. By the act of incorporation, it was to be a bank of discount as well as deposite, and its bills, which were payable in gold and silver on demand, were made receivable in all payments to the United States. The bank was located at Philadelphia, with power in the directors to establish offices of discount and deposite only, whereever they should think fit within the United States. The duration of the charter was limited to the fourth of March, 1811; and the faith of the United States was pledged, that during that period no other bank should be established under their authority.

One of the fundamental articles of the incorporation was, that no loan should be made to the United States for more than one hundred thousand dollars, or to any particular state for more than fifty thousand, or to any foreign Prince or state, unless previously authorized by a law of the United States. The books were opened for subscriptions in July, 1791, and a much larger sum subscribed than was allowed by the charter; and the bank went into successful operation. This measure was not adopted without warm and violent debates.

It was said in opposition, in the first place, that Congress had no power, under the constitution, to create this or any other corporation; in the second place, that so large a moneyed institution would, in its effects, be highly injurious to the community. Its advocates, on the other hand, contended, generally, that the establishment of an institution of this kind, though not within the express words of the constitution, was among the incidental powers contemplated by that part of the instrument which enabled Congress to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution the powers expressly granted.

The President, before approving the bill, requested the opinions of the members of his cabinet, in writing, as to its constitutionality. The Secretary of State, and Attorney General, were of opinion, that the bill was unconstitutional, while the Secretaries of the Treasury, and War, were of a different opinion, and concurred with the majority in Congress. Mr. Jefferson was decidedly and warmly opposed to this institution, not only on account of its unconstitutionality, but on account of the danger to be apprehended to government from the

exorbitancy of its power, and the injury which it might inflict on community. The following is his official opinion on the constitutional question:

"The bill for establishing a national bank, undertakes, among other things,

1. To form the subscribers into a corporation.

2. To enable them, in their corporate capacities, to receive grants of land; and so far, is against the laws of Mortmain.

3. To make alien subscribers capable of holding lands; and so far, is against the laws of Alienage.

4. To transmit these lands, on the death of a proprietor, to a certain line of successors; and so far, changes the course of Descents.

5. To put the lands out of the reach of forfeiture and escheat; and so far, is against the laws of Forfeiture and Escheat.

6. To transmit personal chattels to successors in a certain line; and so far, is against the laws of Distribution.

7. To give them the sole and exclusive right of banking under the national authority; and so far, is against the laws of Monopoly.

8. To communicate to them a power to make laws paramount to the laws of the states; for so they must be construed, to protect the institution from the control of the state legislatures; and so, probably, they will be construed.

I consider the foundation of the constitution as laid on this ground, that 'all powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states or to the people.'

(Twelfth amendment.) To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition.

The incorporation of a bank, and the powers assumed by this bill, have not, in my opinion, been delegated to the United States by the constitution.

I. They are not among the powers specially enumerated. For these are,

But no debt is paid by Were it a bill to raise Senate would condemn it

1. A power to lay taxes for the purpose of paying the debts of the United States. this bill, nor any tax laid. money, its origination in the by the constitution.

But this bill neither bor

2. To borrow money.' rows money, nor ensures the borrowing it. The proprietors of the bank will be just as free as any other money-holders, to lend or not to lend their money to the publick. The operation proposed in the bill, first to lend them two millions, and then borrow them back again, cannot change the nature of the latter act, which will still be a payment and not a loan, call it by what name you please.

3. To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the states, and with the Indian tribes.' To enact a bank, and to regulate commerce, are two very different acts. He who erects a bank creates a subject of commerce in its bills; so does he who makes a bushel of wheat, or digs a dollar out of the mines.— Yet neither of these persons regulates commerce thereby. To make a thing which may be bought and sold, is not to prescribe regulations for buying and selling.