Abridgement of the Debates of Congress, from 1789 to 1856 (4 of 16 vol.)

Before I proceed, however, I will premise that all the arguments in support of the right to incorporate a bank, as deducible from the provisions of the constitution itself, are built up by the aid of the clause of the constitution, which has been sometimes called "the sweeping clause." I allude to the clause which declares that Congress shall have the right to pass all laws necessary and proper for the carrying into execution the delegated powers. All the powers in the constitution are given for certain ends or objects. But each power is not a general authority to attain a particular object, and comprehending, of course, all the means or powers applicable to its accomplishment; but, in most cases, it is a specific means for effecting some particular end, and all other means or powers (for means and powers are the same thing) conducive to the same end, are expressly excluded by the restrictive clauses of the constitution.

The mode of reasoning adopted by General Hamilton, and the other advocates of implied powers, is this: They first search for the end or object for which a particular power is given; and this object will be an immediate or ultimate one, as may best suit the purpose of the argument. Having ascertained the end or object, they abandon the power; or, rather, they confound the power and the object of it together, and make the attainment of the object, and the execution of the power given to accomplish it, convertible terms. Whatever, they say, attains the object for which any power is given, is an execution of that power. But the constitution gives to Congress a right to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution the delegated powers; and, therefore, as the execution of a power and the attainment of its object are synonymous terms, the constitution gives to Congress a right to make all laws necessary and proper for attaining the ends or objects for which the various powers in the constitution are given.

I beg leave to read a passage from this pamphlet: "The relation between the measure and the end, between the nature of the means employed towards the execution of a power and the object, must be the criterion of constitutionality." Here then is the axiom – now for the application of it. The constitution gives to Congress the power to levy taxes, and also the power to borrow money. But the establishment of a bank is neither levying taxes nor borrowing money; nor is the law incorporating the bank a law to levy taxes, or a law to borrow money. But the immediate end or object for which these two powers were given, was, to enable the Government to raise a revenue; and a bank may promote this object. Then, sir, by a dexterous application of the argument which I have stated, the fallacy of which consists in the sudden and unobserved transitions which are made from the power to the object, and from the object back again to the power, they prove that the establishment of a bank is in execution of the powers to lay taxes and to borrow money. I will now, sir, proceed to examine the particular provisions of the constitution which have been relied on, and to place the subject in some different aspects.

In the first place, then, it is contended that the right to incorporate a Bank of the United States is included in the power to lay and collect taxes. And what is the argument by which this position is maintained? Why, sir, it is said that the law, by creating bank paper and making that paper receivable in payment for taxes, increases the circulating medium in which taxes are paid, and of course must facilitate the payment of them. That whatever facilitates the payment of taxes facilitates also the collection of them; and whatever aids or facilitates the collection of taxes, is a means for their collection. And, therefore, the incorporation of a bank is in execution of the power to lay and collect taxes.

No man, sir, ought to complain of the weakness of a Government, whose powers may be reasoned up by logic like this. Amidst the infinite variety of relations and connections, and dependencies and analogies by which all human transactions are allied to each other, he must be a weak politician who cannot, by hooking together a chain of implication like this, justify any and every measure of political policy or economy, as a means of executing some of the powers with which this Government is intrusted. Take this latitude of implication or construction, and you want no other power but the power to lay and collect taxes. It may be tortured into a justification of every measure which ambition itself could desire. No tyrant ever made a law without assigning the public good as the motive of it. No man on this floor, however wicked his designs, would venture to propose a measure (indeed few could be proposed) in favor of which he could not adduce some plausible argument, to show that it would tend to promote the general prosperity of the country. And in showing this he would show its constitutionality; for it is demonstrable that whatever would promote the general prosperity of the country, would, and for that very reason, facilitate, in some greater or less degree, the payment of taxes; and might therefore be justified as a means for the collection of taxes.

But, sir, the constitution, as I have said before, and I must repeat it again, for this is the radical source of all the error on this subject – the Constitution of the United States is not, as such reasoning supposes it to be, a mere general designation of the ends or objects for which the Federal Government was established, and leaving to Congress a discretion as to the means or powers by which those ends shall be brought about. But the constitution is a specification of the powers or means themselves by which certain objects are to be accomplished. The powers of the constitution, carried into execution according to the strict terms and import of them, are the appropriate means, and the only means within the reach of this Government, for the attainment of its ends. It is true, as the constitution declares, and it would be equally true if the constitution did not declare it, that Congress have a right to pass all laws necessary and proper for executing the delegated powers; but this gives no latitude or discretion in the selection of means or powers. A power given to Congress in its legislative capacity, without the right to pass laws to execute it, would be nugatory; would be no power at all. It would be a solecism in language to call it a power. A power to lay and collect taxes, carries with it a right to make laws for that purpose; but they must be laws to lay and collect taxes, and not laws to incorporate banks. If you undertake to justify a law under a particular power, you must show the incidentality and applicability of the law to the power itself, and not merely its relation to any supposed end which is to be accomplished by its exercise. You must show that the plain, direct, ostensible, primary object and tendency of your law is to execute the power, and not that it will tend to facilitate the execution of it. It is not less absurd than it is dangerous, first to assume some great, distinct and independent power, unknown to the constitution, and violating the rights of the States; and, then, to attempt to justify it by a reference to some remote, indirect, collateral tendency, which the exercise of it may have towards facilitating the execution of some known and acknowledged power. This word facilitate has become a very fashionable word in the construction of powers; but, sir, it is a dangerous one; it means more than we are aware of. To do a thing and to facilitate the doing of it, are distinct operations; they are distinct means; they are distinct powers. The constitution has expressly given to Congress the power to do certain things; and it has as explicitly withheld from them the power to do every other thing. The power to lay and collect taxes is one thing; and the power to establish banks, involving in its exercise the regulation of the internal domestic economy of the States, is another and totally distinct thing; and the one is, therefore, not included in the other.

Again, sir, it is contended that the right to incorporate a bank is implied in the power to regulate trade and intercourse between the several States. It is said to be so, inasmuch as it creates a paper currency, which furnishes a convenient and common circulating medium of trade between the several States. Money, sir, has nothing more to do with trade, than that it furnishes a medium or representative of the value of the articles employed in trade. The only office of bank bills is to represent money. Now, if it be a regulation of trade, to create the representative articles or subjects of trade a fortiori, will it be a regulation of trade to create the articles or subjects themselves. By this reasoning then you may justify the right of Congress to establish manufacturing and agricultural companies within the several States; because the direct object and effect of these would be, to increase manufactures and agricultural products, which are the known and common subjects of trade. You might, with more propriety say, that under the power to regulate trade between the States, we have a right to incorporate canal companies; because canals would tend directly to open, facilitate and encourage trade and intercourse between the several States; and, in my humble opinion, sir, canals would furnish a much more salutary, direct and efficacious means, for enabling the great body of the people to pay their taxes, than is furnished by banks. But, sir, these various powers have never been claimed by the Federal Government; and, much as I am known to favor that particular species of internal improvement, I would never vote to incorporate a company for the purpose of opening a canal through any State, without first obtaining the consent of that State whose territorial rights would be affected by it. There can be no question but canal companies, and agricultural companies, and manufacturing companies, and banking companies, may all tend, more or less, to facilitate the operations of trade; but they have nothing to do with the political regulations of trade; and such only come within the scope of the powers of Congress.

But, it is again said, that the right to grant this charter is included in the power to borrow money. The right is attempted to be deduced by a train of reasoning similar to that employed in relation to the provisions which I have already noticed – by forming a string of implications, by which you prove that a power to act in certain cases, and in relation to certain subjects, implies the power to create those cases and subjects to act upon. The Government, it is said, may want and must have money, in any great national crisis. A National Bank with an extensive capital will furnish ample means for loans, will facilitate the exercise of the power to borrow; and, therefore, the right to establish such a bank is implied in the power to borrow. No one, but a logician, sir, would imagine that a power to lend and a power to borrow had any relation to each other, much less could he conjecture that a power to borrow, and a power to create the ability to lend, mean the same thing. A plain unsophisticated man, on reading the constitution, would say, that the power to borrow necessarily, and by force of the term, pre-supposed the existence of the ability and disposition to lend; and that it could not be exercised unless such ability and disposition should actually exist. But the favorite doctrine is, that all powers are given for particular ends, and include all the means applicable to their attainment. Here the end is to borrow money; to borrow honestly if we can, but – to borrow. The ability to lend is a necessary means or ingredient toward perfecting the execution of the power to borrow. But, sir, let me ask, whether the disposition to lend be not as necessary a means towards accomplishing a loan as the ability? It unquestionably is. And, of course, by the doctrine that the end justifies the means, you may coerce the will to lend – and this too equally, in cases where the ability is created by Congress, and where it is derived from any other quarter. A loan obtained by bringing into fair operation all the implications of this power would be borrowing in an off-handed style. Such a loan, if effected by Bonaparte, we should call robbery; but in this mild Republic, it would be nothing more than the fair exercise of an implied constitutional power.

I have pursued this argument thus far, merely for the purpose of showing the absurdities into which this doctrine of implication will lead us. But suppose, sir, that the argument of the gentleman on the other side of the question be correct, to wit: that the power to borrow implies a right to furnish the ability to lend. What, I would ask, is the probable fact, as to the facilities which this bank will afford the Government in borrowing?

It will be conceded that we shall have no occasion for borrowing, except in case of war; and if we have a war, the probability is, that that war will be with Great Britain – I say this, not as a party man, sir, but because the interests of that nation, from her situation, and her rival pursuits, will be much more likely to come in collision with ours, than those of any other power. Now it is a fact, in evidence before the committee, that more than one-half of the stock of this bank belongs to British subjects: and although, as foreigners, they can have no direct agency in the affairs of the bank, yet we well know that through the instrumentality of their friends and agents, of whom there are unfortunately too many in this country, they may completely control its operations. Now I would ask, whether it is probable, that the British subjects would be willing to lend us money to carry on war against their sovereign? Would they not, on the contrary, exert the influence which they are said to possess over the moneyed interest of this country, for the purpose of depressing the credit of the country; for the purpose of crippling the operations of the State banks; and for the purpose of drying up the sources from which the Government might otherwise calculate to derive supplies? But, sir, this has little to do with the question of constitutionality, to which I will again return.

Another ground upon which the constitutionality of this institution has been attempted to be supported, is, that it is necessary to the regular and successful administration of the finances. There is no question, but the bank and its branches afford convenient places for the deposit and safe keeping of the public revenue. It is not to be controverted that they also furnish a safe, convenient, expeditious and cheap means for the transmission of moneys from one part of the United States to another, as they may be wanted by the Government; and if these facilities were not to be attained in any other way, I should say it would afford an argument in favor of a bank. Not a bank infringing and violating the rights of the States; but, a bank upon principles consistent with those rights.

But, sir, is there not, in every State in which there is a branch of the United States' Bank, also one or more State banks, of equal respectability, and of equal security – at least to the extent of any sum for which they are willing to undertake? These State banks may be used as depositaries for the public moneys, and they will be equally safe and convenient. And if you will give to these State banks the advantages of these deposits, as you have hitherto given them to the United States' Bank, they will furnish means for the transmission of moneys from place to place, equally safe, convenient, cheap and expeditious. This object will be attained by connections which will be formed between the banks of the different States. Such connections have already in many instances been formed. But they have not been carried to the extent they otherwise would have been, on account of the United States' Bank and its branches; between which there is so intimate and so necessary a connection.

But, in answer to this, it is said that if the Bank of the United States would be constitutional without the existence of the State banks, it is equally so with. That a power which is once constitutional is equally so at all times, and under all circumstances. That a right which must depend for its existence on the will of the State Legislatures, over whom we have no control, is incomplete, and indeed, as to us, is no right all. This argument is founded on the supposition that the Federal Government is a complete Government, containing in itself all the principles and powers necessary for its own operations, which supposition is wholly false. The Federal Government does not profess to be complete in itself. It is expressly predicated on the existence of the State Governments; and most of the facilities for its exercise are derived from the State governments. It cannot perform even its own peculiar powers and functions, without the aid and co-operation of the State authorities. How, let me ask you, sir, is your Government constituted? Your Senate is appointed directly by the State Legislatures. Your President and House of Representatives, indirectly, by the same authority. Suppose they should neglect or refuse to make these appointments, can you compel them to do it? No, sir. Can you punish them for not doing it? Not in the least. They may appoint or not, as they think proper; and if they should neglect or refuse to do it, your boasted complete Government would die a natural death, by its own imbecility. It is not fair, then, to say that a power is constitutional, because the Government would be incomplete without it. It is not fair to say, that what would be constitutional without the existence of the State Governments and their appendages, is equally so with. This would prove that you have a right to appoint your own President, Senate and House of Representatives. It would go to usurp all the powers of the State Governments; for the Government could not be said to be complete without possessing the powers of both Governments combined. Indeed, this Federal Government cannot be said to be complete as to a single power, without all the auxiliary powers of the State Governments; for there is not a single act which it can perform without their assistance, directly or indirectly. The very bank law now under consideration is an illustration of this – for how are the provisions of this law to be enforced; how are the debts which it authorizes to be contracted to be collected, but through the medium of the State courts? The doctrine of perfect rights, then, if it prove any thing, proves too much. If it proves that, in order to manage your revenues, you may establish banks within the States; it equally proves, that, in order to carry the provisions of your bank laws into execution, you may establish courts and offices within the States for that purpose. I think then, sir, I may fairly conclude, that so long as the State Governments furnish you with all the facilities which you can reasonably require for conducting your revenues by means of their State banks; so long it will be unnecessary – so long it will be improper – and, therefore, so long it will be unconstitutional to invade the jurisdiction of the States, to establish national banks.

But, sir, I will conclude by again cautioning my Republican friends, and my worthy colleague in particular, to beware how they familiarize themselves with this doctrine of constructive power. It is a creed at war with the vital principles of political liberty. The pride and the boast of the American Governments is, that they are the governments of the laws and not of men – that they are the regular and necessary operations and results of principles and powers, established in the moments of cool and deliberate reflection, by the combined wisdom of the nation; and that they are not the effects of the momentary passion, pride, interest, whim, or caprice of a few individuals collected on this floor.

Little did the framers of this constitution, when they were so nicely adjusting and balancing its various provisions – when they were so carefully erecting guards and barriers against the encroachments of power and ambition – little, I say, sir, did they imagine, that there lay concealed under the provisions of this constitution, a secret and sleeping power, which could, in a moment, prostrate all their labors with the dust. Still less, sir, did the people when they adopted this constitution, with even more caution and scruple than that with which it was formed, conjecture that they were signing the death-warrant of all their State rights. But, once adopt the doctrine that you may travel out of the letter of this constitution, and assume powers, merely on the ground that they will tend to facilitate the execution of powers which are here given; and you compass, at a single sweep, all the rights of the States; and form the basis of a consolidated Government.

Let the principle of constructive or implied powers be once established, in the extent to which it must be carried in order to pass this bill, and you will have planted in the bosom of this constitution a viper which, one day or another, will sting the liberties of this country to the heart.

When Mr. Porter had concluded his speech, the question was taken on striking out the first section, and carried – 59 to 46.

The committee rose, and reported to the House, who adjourned without taking a question on the report.

Saturday, January 19

Another member, to wit, from New York, Barent Gardenier, appeared, and took his seat.

Bank of the United States

Mr. Sawyer called for the order of the day on the unfinished business of yesterday – the bill continuing the charter of the Bank of the United States.

[The first section had been struck out in Committee of the Whole, and the bill reported to the House, and the question now was upon concurrence with that vote in committee. On that question the debate was renewed in the House, and, of necessity, the same ground gone over which had been trod in committee, and still more extensively. Finally the vote was taken, and the concurrence carried by one vote! so close was the contest in both Houses – in the Senate the question decided by the casting vote of the Vice-President – in the House, by one vote. The following were the yeas and nays:]

Yeas. – Lemuel J. Alston, William Anderson, Ezekiel Bacon, David Bard, William T. Barry, Burwell Bassett, William W. Bibb, Adam Boyd, Robert Brown, William Butler, Joseph Calhoun, Langdon Cheves, Matthew Clay, James Cochran, William Crawford, Richard Cutts, John Dawson, Joseph Desha, John W. Eppes, Meshack Franklin, Barzillai Gannet, Gideon Gardner, Thomas Gholson, Peterson Goodwyn, Edwin Gray, James Holland, Richard M. Johnson, Walter Jones, Thomas Kenan, William Kennedy, John Love, Aaron Lyle, Nathaniel Macon, Alexander McKim, William McKinley, Samuel L. Mitchill, John Montgomery, Nicholas R. Moore, Thomas Moore, Jeremiah Morrow, Gurdon S. Mumford, Thomas Newton, John Porter, Peter B. Porter, John Rea of Penn., John Rhea of Tennessee, Matthias Richards, Samuel Ringgold, John Roane, Ebenezer Sage, Lemuel Sawyer, Ebenezer Seaver, Adam Seybert, John Smilie, George Smith, Samuel Smith, Henry Southard, George M. Troup, Charles Turner, jr., Archibald Van Horne, Robert Weakley, Robert Whitehill, Robert Witherspoon, Richard Wynn, and Robert Wright.

Nays. – Joseph Allen, Willis Alston, jun., Abijah Bigelow, Daniel Blaisdell, James Breckenridge, John Campbell, John C. Chamberlain, Wm. Chamberlin, Epaphroditus Champion, Martin Chittenden, John Davenport, junior, William Ely, James Emott, William Findlay, Jonathan Fisk, Barent Gardenier, David S. Garland, Charles Goldsborough, Thomas R. Gold, William Hale, Nathaniel A. Haven, Daniel Heister, William Helms, Jonathan H. Hubbard, Jacob Hufty, Ebenezer Huntington, Richard Jackson, jun., Robert Jenkins, Philip B. Key, Herman Knickerbacker, Joseph Lewis, jun., Robert Le Roy Livingston, Vincent Matthews Archibald McBryde, Samuel McKee, Pleasant M. Miller, William Milnor, Jonathan O. Mosely, Thomas Newbold, John Nicholson, Joseph Pearson, Benjamin Pickman, junior, Timothy Pitkin, jr., Elisha R. Potter, Josiah Quincy, John Randolph, Thomas Sammons, John A. Scudder, Samuel Shaw, Daniel Sheffey, Dennis Smelt, John Smith, Richard Stanford, John Stanley, James Stephenson, Lewis B. Sturges, Jacob Swoope, Samuel Taggart, Benjamin Tallmadge, John Thompson, Nicholas Van Dyke, Killian K. Van Rensselaer, Laban Wheaton, and James Wilson.9