by the journal of the convention, as has-been already shown, as well as by the statements of able and honorable members of that body. Mr. Madison, in his reply to General Hamilton’s arguments in favor of a national bank, informs Us that a power to grant charters of incorporation had been proposed: in the convention, and rejected.” . Messrs. Baldwin and, Wilson, both distinguished members of the federal convention, have informed ns, through Mr. Jefferson, that among the enumerated powers (<£ proposed to be) given to Congress was one to erect corporations,”.and that “ it Was,on deliberation, struck out.” And further, that P Robert Morris proposed to give Congress power to establish a national bank” and that the proposition was opposed by Gouverneur Morris^ on the ground that it would be unpopular With' the people. This proposition was also rejected by the convention. Well, sir, we are at length enabled satisfactorily to determine whether a power to grant charters ■ of incorporation be a substantive or incidental power. That it was not regarded as an incidental power by those members of’the convention who were the advocates of incorporations, is evident' from the fact, that they proposed to class it with the enumerated and substantive powers. And that it was not considered, as incidental by those members who opposed it. is equally manifest from the reasons urged, by them’in debate against it. They opposed- it, not on the ground that it could be derived by implication, but on the broad democratic principle, that it was’incompatible-with the character of the government which they had’been delegated to establish, and because its exercise would be dangerous to the liberties of the people. The position assumed by the judiciary, therefore, that the power to charter, a national bank is an incidental power, is condemned and contradicted by the unanimous sense of the convention. The convention, by deliberately withholding from Congress the power to’ grant charters of incorporation, for both general and special purposes, thereby clearly and indisputably discountenanced and condemned the principle. Yes, sir, it was the principle of exclusive privileges and of chartered monopolies to which they were opposed, and which they promptly, sternly rejected, as often as introduced, and in whatsoever shape presented. And will it be pretended that the authors of the constitution, after having thus repeatedly and unqualifiedly disapproved and repudiated the principle, still recognised and approved it in the shape of a bank charter—in its most dangerous,, revolting, and malignant aspect ? Who is prepared to accuse the authors of the constitution with such palpable inconsistency, or culpable duplicity ? Sir, I am compelled’to believe that the man who affirms that the framers of the constitution, after having rejected all propositions to grant charters' of incorporation, whether for general or special purposes, intended, at, the same time, to authorize Congress to charter a national bank, holds in light estimation, either the-character of that body, or his own honor. < - Mr. Chairman, I will, in a few words; conclude my remarks on this branch of the subject. It is’admitted, on. all hands, that ours is a government of specific-and limited-powers. . In the language of the constitution: “ The powers not delegated to (he United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” The power to grant charters of incorporation was not delegated to Congress, nor intended to be so, by the convention which formed the constitu
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM4ODY=