23 the American people—bereft of all the blessings of a free Constitution—■ would, at this moment, be writhing under the unmitigated oppressions of a heartless, ruthless despotism. And yet, sir, strange as it may appear, there are those among us, notwithstanding their knowledge of this truth, and notwithstanding all the judicial libels upon the constitution, which are plain to their eyes and to their understandings, who still cleave to that tribunal with all the zeal and enthusiasm of infatuation—regard it as the exclusive depository of wisdom, of freedom, of patriotism—and its decrees as infalli- ble, fixed, and immutable, as the fiat of fate. But, sir, I will bring the decisions of the judiciary to a decisive test, viz: the intentions of the framers of the constitution with regard to such institution. And here, then, I wish it to be borne in mind, that the judiciary have uniformly admitted that the power to incorporate a national bank was not among the enumerated powers of the constitution, and that it could only be derived by implication. In admitting that the power in question was an implied, and not an express power, they necessarily assume that the framers of the constitution intended to vest in Congress a power which they omitted to specify ; for surely it could not be pretended by an intelligent body of men, such as compose our judiciary, that Congress possessed the constitutional power to do an act which the constitution no where expressly authorizes, and which the framers of that instrument evidently- intended to interdict. This doctrine of construction, therefore, rests entirely upon the known or supposed intentions of the convention which framed the constitution. It is incumbent, therefore, on those who allege, in the absence of all direct authority, that Congress possess an implied power to incorporate a national bank, to show, at least, that the convention did not intentionally withhold the said power from Congress. Now, sir, if this cannot be done, but, on the contrary, if it can be proved that the subject in question was agitated in the convention which framed the constitution, that propositions were there made to invest Congress with power to charter a bank, and that all propositions having that object in view were rejected by the convention, it necessarily follows, that Congress possess no such power, whether express or implied—the decision of the Supreme Court to the contrary notwithstanding. I then take this ground ; that inasmuch as there is no express constitutional authority given to Congress to charter a bank, and as the framers of the constitution repeatedly and deliberately rejected all propositions to vest in Congress power to grant acts of incorporation of whatever description, that Congress, therefore, are as virtually and morally prohibited from granting a bank charter (in its national capacity) as if the constitution contained an express prohibitory clause with regard to it. I repeat, that this is my ground; and if I can show that the framers of the constitution did not intend to vest in Congress power to grant acts of incorporation of any kind, but designedly withheld such power, then the constitutional right to charter a bank, does not, and cannot, belong to Congress. In order to show what were the views entertained on the subject of a national bank, as well as of every other species of incorporation, by the framers of the constitution, it will be necessary to consult the journal of the convention, as well as the statements of several of the delegates after the convention rose. But previous to introducingthese authorities, I will state.—what is already known to the committee—that there were two parties in the convention who held opposing views relative to the form and character of the government proposed to be established. The one, ad-
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM4ODY=