Part 124

The House resumed the consideration of the bill for incorporating the Bank of the United States.

The question being on the passage of the bill,

Mr. GILES.--In the course of discussing the present important question, it has been several times insinuated that local motives, and not a candid and patriotic investigation of the subject upon its merits, have given rise to that difference of opinion which has been heretofore manifested in this House. I shall not examine the truth of this observation, but merely remark, that the causes which may have produced the arguments against the proposed measure, whatever they may be, can neither add to, nor take from, their merit or influence, and, of course, the insinuations might have been spared without injury to the subject; but so far as the observation may have been intended to apply to myself, I can truly say, that if a bias were to influence my conduct, it would rather direct it to favor, than to oppose the proposed measure. This bias would arise from two causes: the one from the respect which I entertain for the judgments of the majority who advocate the measure; the other of a more serious nature. I have observed with regret a radical difference of opinion between gentlemen from the Eastern and Southern States, upon the great Governmental questions, and have been led to conclude, that the operation of that cause alone might cast ominous conjecture on the promised success of this much valued Government. Mutual concessions appear to be necessary to obviate this effect, and I have always been pleased in manifesting my disposition to make advances; but from the most careful view of the arguments in favor of the proposed measure considered under this impression, they do not seem to me sufficient to establish the propriety of its adoption, and I am therefore impelled, by the joint influence of duty and opinion, to be one in the opposition.

A gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. AMES) prefaced his observations with this remark, that it is easier to point out defects and raise objections to any proposed system, than to defend it from objections, and prove its affirmative propriety, and warned the House against the effects of arguments of this nature, urged in opposition to the measures now under consideration. I agree with the gentleman in this idea in general, but we should reflect that in the present case the address of the arguments in favor of the measure is made to one of the strongest affections of the human mind, the love of dominion; and hence we may justly conclude, that they will be received and relished with their full and unabated influence. This reflection appears to me to be at least a counterpoise to that remark.

The advocates of this bill have been called on, and I conceive with propriety, to show its constitutionality and expediency, both of which have been doubted by those of the opposition. In support of the first position, a multitude of arguments have been adduced, all of which may be reducible to the following heads; such as are drawn from the constitution itself; from the incidentality of this authority to the mere creation and existence of government; from the expediency of the measure itself; and from precedents of Congress; to which may be added a similar exercise of authority by Congress, under the former Confederation.

Observations arising from the constitution itself, were of two kinds. The right of exercising this authority is either expressed in the constitution, or deducible from it by necessary implication. One gentleman only, from Massachusetts, (Mr. SEDGWICK,) has ventured to assert, that, discarding the doctrine of implication, he could show that the right to exercise the authority contended for was expressly contained in the constitution. This, I presume, must have been a mistake in language, because the difference between an express and an implied authority appears to me to consist in this--in the one case, the natural import of the words used in granting the authority would of themselves convey a complete idea to the mind of the authority granted, without the aid of argument or deduction; in the other, to convey a complete idea to the mind, the aid of argument and deduction is found necessary to the usual import of words used; and that gentleman proceeded with a labored argument to prove, that the authority was expressly granted, which would have been totally useless, if his assertion had been just.

I shall not contend as to the assertion, but shall proceed to consider the arguments in favor of the measure upon the doctrine of implication; which, indeed, are those only which deserve consideration.

In doing this, I shall consider the authority contended for to apply to that of granting charters to corporations in general, for I do not recollect any circumstance, and I believe none has been pretended, which could vary this case from the general exercise of that authority. To establish the affirmative of this proposition, arguments have been drawn from the several parts of the constitution; the context has been resorted to. "We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity," &c. It has been remarked, that here the ends for which this Government was established are clearly pointed out; the means to produce the ends are left to the choice of the Legislature, and that the incorporation of a bank is one necessary mean to produce these general ends. It may be observed, in reply, that the context contemplates every general object of Government whatever; and if this reasoning were to be conclusive, every object of Government would be within the authority of Congress, and the detail of the constitution would have been wholly unnecessary, further than to designate the several branches of the Government which were to be intrusted with this unlimited, discretionary choice of means, to produce these specified ends. The same reasoning would apply as forcibly to every clause of the constitution, restraining the authority of Congress to the present case, or to any one in which the constitution is silent. The only candid construction arising from the context appears to me to be this; it is designed, and it is the known office of every member to point out the great objects proposed to be answered by the subsequent regulations of which the constitution is composed. These regulations contain the means by which these objects are presumed to be best answered. These means consist in a proper distribution of all Governmental rights between the Government of the United States and the several State governments, and in fixing limits to the exercise of all authorities granted to the Government of the United States. The context, therefore, gives no authority whatever, but only contemplates the ends for which certain authorities are subsequently given. Arguments drawn from this source appear to be ineffectual in themselves, and the reliance of gentlemen upon them indicates a suspicion and distrust of such as may be drawn from other parts of the constitution. The advocates of the bill have turned away from this context, and have applied to the body of the constitution in search of arguments. They have fixed upon the following clauses, to all or some one of which they assert the authority contended for is clearly incidental; the right to lay and collect taxes, &c., &c.; to provide for the common defence and general welfare, &c.; to borrow money, &c.; to regulate commerce with foreign nations, &c. The bill contemplates neither the laying nor collecting taxes, and, of course, it cannot be included in that clause; indeed, it is not pretended, by the bill itself, to be at all necessary to produce either of those ends; the furthest the idea is carried in the bill, is, that it will tend to give a facility to the collection.

The terms "common defence and general welfare" contain no grant of any specific authority, and can relate to such only as are particularly enumerated and specified. "To borrow money." Gentlemen have relied much upon this clause; their reasoning is, that a right to incorporate a bank is incidental to that of borrowing money, because it creates the ability to lend, which is necessary to effectuate the right to borrow. I am at a loss to discover one single relation between the right to borrow, and the right to create the ability to lend, which is necessary to exist between principal and incident. It appears to me that the incidental authority is paramount to the principal, for the right of creating the ability to lend is greater than that of borrowing from a previously existing ability. I should, therefore, rather conclude that the right to borrow, if there be a connection at all, would be incidental to the right to grant charters of incorporation, than the reverse of that proposition, which is the doctrine contended for by the advocates of the measure. The same reasoning which would establish a right to create the ability to lend, would apply more strongly to enforce the will after the ability is created; because the creator would have a claim of gratitude at least upon the created ability, which if withheld, perhaps, with justice might be insisted on. "To regulate commerce with foreign nations." This is by no means a satisfactory ground for the assumption of this authority; for if it be deemed a commercial regulation, there is a clause in the constitution which would absolutely inhibit its exercise. I allude to that clause which provides that no preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of one State over those of another; and it seems to be admitted, that one principal effect to be produced by the operation of this measure will be to give a decided commercial preference to this port over every other in the United States.

Gentlemen finding it difficult to show that necessary relation and intimate connection between the authority contended for, and any one of the specified authorities before mentioned, which would be essential to the establishment of their doctrine, have referred to what has been generally called the sweeping clause, and have made deductions from the terms "necessary" and "proper;" they have observed that certain specified authorities being granted, all others necessary to their execution follow without any particular specification. This observation may in general be true, but its fallacy here consists in its application to this particular case. It cannot be applied until the exercise of this authority be proved to be necessarily connected with some one of the previously enumerated authorities, and here the argument, as well as the fact, fails.

The authority contended for seems to me to be a distinct substantive branch of legislation, and, perhaps, paramount to any one of the previously enumerated authorities, and should therefore not be usurped as an incidental subaltern authority.

I am confirmed in this opinion from the indistinct, confused conceptions of gentlemen who advocate the measure. They rely upon the incidentality of this authority to some one of those particularly specified, and yet have applied it as an incident to several distinct, unconnected subjects of legislation; and then, distrusting their own conclusions, or as if the inquiry would be too troublesome or minute, they leave this ground, and assert that it is incidental to the result of the whole combined specified authorities. Gentlemen must, therefore, view this right through different optics, at different times; or, what I rather believe to be the fact, they have no distinct view of it at all, the right having no existence.

A gentleman from Massachusetts, (Mr. SEDGWICK,) finding the usual import of the terms used in the constitution to be rather unfavorable to the doctrines advanced by him, has favored us with a new exposition of the word "necessary." He says that "necessary," as applicable to a mean to produce an end, should be construed so as to produce the greatest quantum of public utility. I have been taught to conceive that the true exposition of a necessary mean to produce a given end was that mean without which the end could not be produced.

The gentleman's reasoning, however, if pursued, will be found to teem with dangerous effects, and would justify the assumption of any given authority whatever. Terms are to be so construed as to produce the greatest degree of public utility. Congress are to be the judges of this degree of utility. This utility, when decided on, will be the ground of constitutionality. Hence any measure may be proved constitutional which Congress may judge to be useful. These deductions would suborn the constitution itself, and blot out the great distinguishing characteristic of the free constitutions of America, as compared with the despotic Governments of Europe, which consist in having the boundaries of governmental authority clearly marked out and ascertained.

The exclusive jurisdiction over ten miles square has been adverted to by one gentleman (Mr. AMES) as a specified authority, to which the one contended for is suggested to be incidental. He has reasoned in this manner: Congress possess jurisdiction over ten miles square, &c.; Congress may therefore establish a bank within the ten miles square, and, as principle is not applicable to place, Congress may exercise the same authority any where else. This seems to me to be an ingenious improvement upon sophistical deduction; the gentleman, however, should have reflected that the ground upon which he built the right to exercise this authority was that of exclusive jurisdiction, and to extend the principle it is necessary to extend the right of exclusive jurisdiction; without this, the basis of his argument fails, and the superstructure, however beautiful, must follow; for the principle, if at all deducible from that source, is expressly confined to place, and cannot operate beyond it.

I shall now consider the second resource, whence the constitutional right of exercising the proposed authority is derived; its incidentality to the mere creation and existence of government. It has been observed, that in all governments there are certain rights tacitly granted, and certain other rights retained; that it is impossible, in framing a constitution, to enumerate every minute governmental right, and that such an attempt would be chimerical and vain. And hence the incidentality of this authority to the mere existence of government is inferred. These observations seem to me to apply to a government growing out of a state of society, and not to a government composed of chartered rights from previously existing governments, or the people of those governments. I have been taught to consider this as a Federal, not as a consolidated Government, and am not prepared or disposed at present to relinquish that idea. A gentleman from New York (Mr. LAWRENCE) has remarked, that the Government is consolidated quo ad the powers granted, and of course quo ad their incidents; but he should first have shown that the authority contended for is one of those granted, or incidental to some one of them, before the application can be made. The observation can have no tendency to establish either of those positions. What effect would this doctrine, if admitted, have upon the State governments? And how would it be relished by them? Their dignity and consequence will not only be prostrated by it, but their very existence radically subverted. A third resource of deducing this constitutional authority is resorted to--the expediency of the proposed measure itself. I presume the great object of the constitution was to distribute all governmental rights between the several State Governments and the Government of the United States; the expediency, therefore, of the exercise of all constitutional rights, as they relate to State or General Governments, is properly contemplated and decided by the constitution, and not by the Governments among which the distribution is made. A gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. SMITH) has said, that the expediency and constitutionality of the proposed measure cannot be considered separately, because the constitutionality grows out of the expediency. This is but candidly unveiling the subject of that sophistical mask which has been ingeniously thrown over it by some gentlemen; for all the arguments adduced in favor of the measure, from whatever source they arise, if pursued, will be found to rush into the great one of expediency, to bear down all constitutional provisions, and to end themselves in the unlimited ocean of despotism.

Several gentlemen have said, that this authority may be safely exercised, since it does not interfere with the rights of States or individuals. I think this assertion not very correct; if the States be constitutionally entitled to the exercise of this authority, it is an intrusion on their rights to do an act which would eventually destroy or impede the freest exercise of that authority; for it is totally immaterial whether the effect be produced by the operation of this, or by an inhibition in express terms. The States may not only incorporate banks, but may of right prohibit the circulation of bank paper within their respective limits; the act, therefore, if it be intended to have an effectual operation, will certainly infringe this right, or exist at the mercy of the State governments. This reasoning, however, places the subject in another point of view a little singular. It contemplates the authority contended for as vacant ground, and justifies the tenure by the mere title of occupancy. In almost all the remarks in favor of the measure, gentlemen seem to have forgotten the peculiar nature of this Government. It being composed of mere chartered authorities, all authority not contained within that charter would, from the nature of the grant, have been retained to the granting party; and I will venture to assert, that this opinion was the sine qua non of the adoption and existence of this Government; but if this opinion had been doubtful, Congress themselves have made an express declaration in favor of this construction to the proposed amendments to the constitution. Gentlemen have inferred a constitutional right to exercise the authority contended for from a fourth resource--the former usages and habits of Congress. In affirmance of this argument, several acts of Congress have been referred to--the power of removal from office, the government of the Western Territory, the cession from North Carolina, the purchase of West Point, &c. I shall not examine into the propriety of these several acts, though I conceive it would not be difficult to show, that they differ materially, upon constitutional grounds, from the one now proposed. I shall only remark, that, if Congress have heretofore been in the usage and habit of disregarding and violating the constitution, it is high time that that habit and usage be corrected. I hope and trust that the people of the United States will not tamely see the only security of their rights and liberties invaded and violated, but also see one violation of it with impunity boldly urged as an argument to justify another.

An instance of a similar exercise of authority by the Congress which existed under the former Confederation, has been mentioned in favor of its exercise by the present Congress. The argument has been, that as the powers of the present Congress are greater than those of the former Congress, and the former were competent to the exercise of this right, the present must be more so. It is to be remarked, that that act was the child of necessity, and that Congress doubted its legitimacy, and the act itself was never confirmed by a judicial decision; and it should be also remarked, that the same Congress did not pretend to possess the right to punish those who should counterfeit the paper of the Bank, and recommended it to the States to confirm the act which they had done, and to pass laws for the purpose of punishing those who should counterfeit the paper, and it is a little remarkable that this circumstance, which is one of the most essential to the existence and operation of this act, is withheld from our view. But as I think arguments drawn from this source wholly foreign to the subject, I shall make no further remark upon them.

I shall now suggest a few observations respecting the expediency of the proposed measure. In doing this, I shall not say any thing as to the utility of banks in general, nor as to the effects of the banks of England, Scotland, Holland, &c. I possess not sufficient practical or theoretical knowledge to justify the inquiry; I shall only point out a few circumstances, which are peculiarly attached to the government we are now administering, which might vary the application of general rules, drawn from governments of a different nature, and which possess the unquestioned right of granting charters of incorporation.

In the first place, the right of exercising that authority by the Government is at least problematical, it is nowhere granted in express terms; the Legislature, therefore, can have no competent security against a judicial decision but a dependent or a corrupt court. I presume that a law to punish with death those who counterfeit the paper emitted by the Bank will be consequent upon the existence of this act. Hence a judicial decision will probably be had of the most serious and awful nature; the life of an individual at stake on the one hand, an improvident act of the Government on the other. A distrust arising from this cause will for ever keep the Bank in jeopardy, and the very first trial of this nature will probably subject the Bank to a run which it will be unable to withstand; for all stockholders will require the greatest possible security for their money, and a distrust of such an institution will be its destruction. This observation seems to me to have peculiar force, from the great proportion of paper to that of gold and silver, upon which the Bank is proposed to be founded. The peculiar relation between the General and State Governments, will naturally produce a contest for governmental rights, until long experience shall settle the precise boundaries between them. The present measure appears to me to be an unprovoked advance in this scramble for authority, and a mere experiment how far we may proceed without involving the opposition of the State Governments. It should be remarked that this Government is in its childhood; it is therefore unfitted for such bold and manly enterprises, and policy would dictate that it should wait at least until it may have become more matured or invigorated. Two modes of administering this Government present themselves; the one with mildness and moderation, by keeping within the known boundaries of the constitution, the other, by the creation and operation of fiscal mechanism; the first will ensure us the affections of the people, the only natural and substantial basis of Republican Governments; the other will arise and exist in oppression and injustice, will increase the previously existing jealousies of the people, and must be ultimately discarded, or bring about a radical change in the nature of our Government. Having suggested these observations upon the measure in general, I shall now proceed to point out a few objections to the details of the bill. I think the authority given to the Bank to purchase and hold lands objectionable; in the first place I doubt the constitutional right of Congress to invest such an authority; the lands within the United States are holden of the individual States, and not of the United States; and that tenure appears to me to be the true ground upon which the right to exercise that authority grows. I believe it is admitted, that although Congress may naturalize a foreigner, they cannot authorize him to purchase lands; and I think the case at least as strong, when they first create an artificial person, and then invest the authority; besides, if we have any reference to the experience of other countries, we shall find it dangerous to allow incorporated bodies to hold lands at all. The exercise of that right produced great oppression in England, and nothing but the masterly activity of an absolute prince could apply a competent remedy. A gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. SEDGWICK) has denied that the Bank is invested with this right. It is true it is confined to the mode of purchasing by mortgage, but that is the most effectual mode of purchasing, and the most ruinous to the landholder.

I will merely mention one other objection without a comment--the authority given to make laws not contrary to law or its own constitution; but the most objectionable clause is that which limits its duration, and pledges the faith of the United States that no other bank shall be established in the mean time, however dangerous and offensive the present measure might prove in its operation, and whatever may be the utility and advantage in any other scheme of banking which experience may suggest. Such a stipulation cannot be justified but from the most pointed necessity, and from the maturest deliberation. When I search for the necessity of this measure, it escapes me; it is not pretended in the bill itself; the chief stimulus which I can discover to the existence of this measure, is to give artificial impulse to the value of stock. This is not a sufficient justification; the subject has not been sufficiently considered, and I therefore hope it may be postponed to some future session of Congress; many evils may be avoided by such a conduct, none can result from it.

Mr. GERRY said, he should principally confine himself to the objections of the gentleman first up from Virginia, (Mr. MADISON,) not from a disrespect to the observations of other gentlemen in the opposition, but because he considered their arguments as grafts on the original stock of those urged by the gentleman alluded to, and if the trunk fell, its appendages must fall also.

The objects of the bill were to render the fiscal administration successful, and to give facility to loans on sudden emergencies, and to benefit trade and industry in general; and that these were objects of high importance had not been denied, neither had it been asserted that they ought not, if possible, to be attained.

It is objected, however, that the mode proposed by the bill is unconstitutional, and the bill itself defective.

The mode proposed is a National Bank; to establish which he thought Congress were as competent as either House were to adjourn from day to day.

It is said that Congress have no power relating to this subject, except what is contained in the clauses for laying and collecting taxes, imposts, excises, &c.; for borrowing money, and for making all laws necessary and proper for carrying these powers into effect; and that these do not authorize the establishment of a National Bank.

To ascertain this, the gentleman from Virginia proposes a candid interpretation of the constitution, which we shall agree to, and he offers to assist us with his rules of interpretation, for his good intentions in doing which we give him full credit; but as he acknowledges that he has been long decided against the authority of Congress to establish a bank, and is therefore prejudiced against the measure; as his rules, being made for the occasion, are the result of his interpretation, and not his interpretation of the rules; as they are not sanctioned by law exposition, or approved by experienced judges of the law, they cannot be considered as a criterion for regulating the judgment of the House, but may, if admitted, prove an ignis fatuus that may lead to destruction.

We wish not, however, by establishing our own rules of interpretation, to enjoy the privilege which is denied to the gentleman, but will meet him on fair ground, by applying rules which have the sanction mentioned; and as the learned Judge Blackstone has laid down such, it is presumed the gentleman from Virginia will not contend for a preference, or refuse to be tried by this standard.