blit, like, good and true patriots, make it publicly known, that it may be employed for the healing of tHe nation. My colleague has pronounced the sub-treasury system unconstitutional^ but did not attempt to prove it so. Now, sir, by way of a set off, 1 pronounce unconstitutional the substitute of my colleague, a national bank; and so I shall endeavor to prove it by calm and dispassionate -argument. A national bank, being the principal antagonist measure to the bill wilder discussion, I shall confine my remarks principally to that subject ; and, as this is the only point that has not been fully and thoroughly discussed in the progress of this debate, there will be the greater propriety in this course. I shall, therefore, attempt to argue at length this part of the subject. I can find no authority in the constitution for granting charters of incorporation, of whatever narpe/kind, or description ; and no honorable geritle- 'man, I presume, will hazard the declaration that such power is directly given to Congress by the constitution. The most hardy and reckless advocates of a'national bank have never ventured to affirm that such power was specific and direct—that the warrant was express. They all resort to the doctrine of implication and construction. Sir, let us examine this doctrine ; let us take up the constitution in a spirit of honesty and soberness, and see what clause of that instrument, if any, vests in Congress even an implied power to incorporate a national bank Sir, I am aware of the vastness of the subject which T propose to examine. I am aware that the constitutionality of a national bank has been repeatedly discussed by the most eminent jurists and statesmen of the nation. Arid I am also aware that an attempt, on my part, to grapple with a subject of such magnitude, arid under such circumstances, will be attributed by many to a want of discretion, if not to a culpable vanity. Be it so. I conceive it to be my duty—I know it to be my right—to express my views fully on this subject ; and, although I may be unable to shed any additional light bn this Jong agitated arid vexations question, yet I will, nevertheless, state the arguments and considerations which exert a controlling influence on my judgment. Permit me then, sir, to call, for a moment, the attention of the committee to the peculiar character of our Government. It is conceded by all parties, I believe, to be a government of limited and specified powers; which powers are expressly prescribed by the constitution. To the constitution, then, and to the constitution alone, must Congress look for all and every power they would exercise. Unless, therefore, the power to grant charters of incorporation be expressly granted by the constitution, the exercise of such power, on the part of Congress, would be a violation of that instrument. But, say gentlemen, although we do not pretend to assert, that the power to incorporate is given in direct terms to Congress by the constitution, we contend, nevertheless, that such power is derived by fair and legitimate construction. But, when the advocates of this doctrine have been called upon to designate the clause of the constitution which confers on Congress the power to incorporate a bank, they have been sadly puzzled to comply with the requisition, but have wandered arid wandered from article to article, and from clause to clause, seeking in vain,for authority. When driven from one position they flee to another ; ever vacillating ; never fixed in their views ; never satisfied with their own, nor with each others’ arguments. No unity of opinion prevails among them as to the particular clause in the constitution, where this doctrine of construction and implication, authorizing acts of incorporation, is
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM4ODY=