The argument against the Constitutionality of the bank, was founded on the general position, "that the Federal Government was peculiarly limited," not being "a general grant, out of which particular powers are excepted;" but "a grant of particular powers only, leaving the general mass in other hands." The power of creating incorporations not being found among the enumerated "particular powers, must be derived by implication from those which were expressly given." Of these, the only clauses under which it could be claimed, were alleged to be those of levying and collecting taxes to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare -the power to borrow money on the credit of the United States; or, that of passing all laws necessary and proper to carry those powers into execution. From neither of these clauses, it was asserted, this power could be implied. The bill did not lay a tax; nor could any valid argument be derived from the phrases, “common defence and general welfare." "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. Nor could it be more fairly derived, from the power of borrowing money. The bill did not borrow. To say that the power to borrow involves a power of creating the ability, when there may be the will to lend, is not only establishing a dangerous principle, but it 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 clause giving the power to pass all laws necessary and proper to execute the specified powers, "was limited to means necessary to the end, and incident to the nature of the specified powers." It was merely de

claratory, of what would have resulted by unavoidable implication, as the appropriate, as it were, technical means of executing these powers; and, if extended further, would confer an unlimited discretion on Congress, and would destroy the essential characteristic of the Government, as one composed of limited and enumerated powers. "The doctrine of implication was a very 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. If the reasoning, on which the bill proceeded, was granted, the effect would be, to form a chain of implications that will reach every object of legislation." After adducing several passages in the Constitution, to enforce this objection, and to show, "that it condemned the exercise of any power, particularly a great and important power, which is not evidently and necessarily involved in an express power," Madison proceeded to exhibit the importance of this power from its effects. "It created an artificial person not existing in law," on which important civil rights and attributes were conferred" which could not be otherwise claimed;" being equivalent, though not similar to the power of naturalization-a power which Congress would not have had "if it had not been expressly given." By authorizing the Bank to make by-laws; the bill delegated a sort of legislative power, with this only restraint, "that they should not be contrary to the laws and the constitution of the Bank." If this meant the laws of the United States, it would give a power never before given to a corporation; and, which would supersede the laws of the States within their own jurisdiction. If the law of the State was intended, “then the State might make laws that would destroy an institu

tion of the United States." It gives a power to pur chase and hold lands, which Congress could not do within a State, without its consent. It takes from our suc

cessors, the opportunity for an immoderate term, of exercising the right of deciding on the subject, which they ought equally to possess with ourselves. "It takes from our constituents the opportunity of deliberating on the untried measure, although their hands are absolutely to be tied by it, for the same term. It involves a monopoly -affecting the equal rights of every citizen."

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

This opinion was sought to be sustained by reference to the cotemporary expositions given to the Constitution, when it was submitted to the people. The defence of the want of a bill of rights presupposed, that the powers not given were retained, and that those given were not to be extended by remote implication; and similar explanations were adduced, as having been given in the State Conventions. "The ratifications of the States," he said, "formed a striking evidence, wearing the same complexion "-circumstances which acquired greater force from the character of the explanatory amendments proposed by Congress, and ratified by the States.

"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 Govern ment, and protect those of the State Governments.”

The opposition to the bill was also sustained, by Giles and Stone. Their observations on the Constitutional question, were chiefly repetitions of the previous argument, amplified by allusions to other features of the Constitution. In the course of these, Giles remarked, "that the true exposition of a necessary mean to produce a given end, was that mean without which the end could not be produced." With these were mingled earnest denials of the charge, that the opinions of the opponents of the bill had been warped by considerations connected with the future SEAT OF GOVERNMENT!

The bill was defended by Ames, Sedgwick, Smith, Lawrence, Boudinot, Gerry, and Vining.

A public Bank was declared to be "useful to trade; almost essential to revenue; and little less than indispensably necessary in times of public emergency." "In countries, whose forms of government left them free to choose, this institution had been adopted of choice; and in tin.es of national danger and calamity, had afforded such aid to government, as to make it appear in the eyes of the people, a necessary means of self-preservation." Their utility and policy had been confirmed by the experience of the world. The objection to the proposed duration of the charter was met, by an exposition of the benefits, which the Government would derive from this institution; and of the evils of a fluctuation in the money system of a nation; and by the assertion, that the objection was not real, but had reference to the establishment of the SEAT of GOVERNMENT.

The terms of subscription, it had been alleged, gave undue advantages to the mercantile class; but, as the