let by one man to another at the will of the lessor, and the lessee sows the land, and the lessor after it is sown, and before the corn is ripe, put him out, yet the lessee shall have the corn, and shall have free entry, egress, and regress to cut and carry away the corn." This Latin maxim affords the best definition of what is meant by necessary means. They are those means without which the end could not be attained. The clause then conveys no grant of powers; it was inserted from abundant caution, or, perhaps, for the purpose of letting the power contained in the latter part of the clause, and of vesting in the legislature rather than in the other departments the power of making laws to carry into effect the other powers vested in the government, or in any department or officers thereof. Let us then suppose that this clause had not been inserted. Congress then would have had a right to use the means necessary to effectuate their granted powers, and no more; they could only have used those means sine quo (without which) their express powers could not have been carried into execution. The insertion of the clause has no greater effect: it confers no new powers. When a law is about to pass, the inquiry which ought to be made by Congress is, does the Constitution expressly grant this power? If not, then, is this law one without which some power cannot be executed. If it is not, then it is a power reserved to the States, or to the people, and we may not use the means, nor pass the law.

The Government of the United States is one of specified and limited powers. Although limited, they are yet ample, they are vast. It is entrusted with the regulation of all our external concerns; it is empowered to protect us from foreign nations, and from internal dissensions. For this purpose it may lay taxes, borrow money, raise armies, govern the militia, build ships, and exercise every power which it is necessary should be exercised to attain those great and desirable objects. The purse and the sword are placed in its hands. The State governments have all residuary power; everything necessary for the protection of the lives, liberty and property

of individuals is left subject to their control; the contracts of every class of society, agricultural, mercantile, or mechanical, are regulated by their laws, except in those cases where uniformity was desirable, in which case the States fully surrendered the power. This residuary power was left in possession of the States for wise purposes. It is necessary that the laws which regulate the daily transactions of men should have a regard to their interests, their feelings, even their prejudices. This can better be done when the territory is of moderate dimensions, than when it is immense; it is more peculiarly proper, too, in the situation of our society, where we have been always accustomed to our own laws, and our own legislatures, and where the laws of one State will not suit the people of another; it is still more important that this division of legislative power into external and internal should be rigidly adhered to; and its proper distribution religiously observed, when we reflect that the accumulation of these powers into the hands of one government would render it too strong for the liberty of the people, and would inevitably erect a throne upon the ruins of the Republic. Why then should the Federal Government grasp at powers not necessary for carrying into effect their acknowledged powers? Why should they trench upon those interior measures which were reserved by the States for their own regulation and control? Why should they so eagerly, year after year, and session after session, encroach upon State rights, and make one encroachment a precedent for another? or why should they assume even doubtful powers, when they are vested with so many undoubted powers perfectly adequate for all their legitimate purposes?

I think it clear that the intention of the Constitution was to confer on Congress the power of resorting to such means as are incidental to the express powers; to such means as directly and necessarily tend to produce the desired effect. If the chief or principal object of the instrument intended to be used, be such as to produce other effects, or to conduce to some other end, it cannot be considered as a necessary instrument for effectuating the desired

end, although it may remotely have a tendency to produce the desired effect. Thus, a bank is primarily intended for individual merchants and traders: it is said to increase their capitals, or any rate, to make them, by means of the credit which they acquire by banking operations, to push their mercantile dealings and speculations farther than they could do without that aid: true, after they are established, they may afford some facilities to the government in collecting and distributing their taxes, and may sometimes enable it to borrow money-but, that is not the chief object of their institution; nor would those advantages ever accrue to a government from the institution, unless through the medium of benefits rendered to individuals. But laws incorporating banks for the benefit of individuals, fall naturally and properly within the jurisdiction of the State governments. Those governments regulate the internal affairs of the people, and banks not being necessary to enable the Federal Government either to collect its taxes, or to borrow money, their incorporation seems not to have been intended to be given, and, therefore, was reserved to the States.

It may, however, be asked, whether I can at this day pretend to argue against the constitutionality of a bank established by Congress. In answer, I reply, that it is my intention by these remarks to bring that subject into discussion. I am willing to acquiesce in this particular case, so long as the charter continues without being violated-because it has been repeatedly argued before Congress, and not only in 1791, but in 1815, was so solemnly decided in favor of the measure. But it is against the principles which brought it into life in the year 1791, and those by which it is supported now by the Supreme Court, that I protest: I deprecate the consequences of those principles, and wish to raise my feeble voice in warning my countrymen of the danger of them. There is supposed to have been a very wide difference between the principles which caused that bank to be established in 1791, and those of 1815. On the first occasion it was boldly urged by Mr. Hamilton that necessary meant useful, or conducive to; that the bank, although

not indispensably necessary, would be convenient, and would facilitate the collection of the revenue, and the borrowing of money; and the preamble to the Bank Bill recited that "it is conceived to be conducive to the successful conducting of the finances, and conceived to tend to give facility to the obtaining of loans." The reason, however, which prevailed in 1815 was different. It was then conceived that the establishment of a bank was a necessary means for conducting the fiscal operations of the government; it was urged with great warmth that the government could not go on without it. Although in 1811 the charter of the old bank expired, there could not be found friends enough to renew it; but in 1815 the paper which had been thrown into circulation by the establishment of numerous State banks, having become extremely depreciated, and the commerce of the country become thereby very much embarrassed, many members of Congress began to believe that the only cure for the evil was the establishment of a national bank. It was believed by some, that, without it, the revenue could neither be collected nor distributed. They thought that the necessity which the Constitution required was now apparent, and under the influence of this opinion, a majority was obtained, and the measure was, (I think unfortunately,) ushered into existence. Under the influence of this opinion, and perhaps under a belief that the long acquiescence of the people under a bank law justified it, the President, Madison, approved of the bill, notwithstanding his former hostility to such a law. Subsequent events have rendered it extremely doubtful whether any benefit will result from it. This change of opinion is, however, referred to in the opinion of the Supreme Court, and is arrayed with great force against the opponents of the measure. The reference to that change of opinion. shows how extremely cautious we ought to be in admitting an enlarged construction of the powers given to Congress, since this very admission has been wielded with great force; and there is every reason to believe that it will in future cases be used as a

wedge whereby to let in other powers of indefinite extent, and inconceivable capacity.

The consequences of giving an enlarged, or, what is called a liberal, construction to the grant of powers, are alarming to the States and the people. The disposition to give this enlarged construction has manifested itself on many occasions, and particularly during the short and eventful period of Mr. Adams' administration. Whilst this disposition exists, unchecked and uncontrolled, the first clause of the eighth section is big with dangers. "Congress shall have power to levy and collect taxes, etc., to pay the debts, and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States." Whilst the Constitution was under discussion, its opponents foretold that this clause would be construed into an unlimited commission to exercise every power, which might be alleged to be necessary to the general welfare. The Federalist, No. 4 (Madison) treated that prophecy with contempt. He asked, "For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general powers?" Notwithstanding the opinion of the Federalist, the prophecy of the opponents of the Constitution turned out to be true. It was contended by some that Congress had a right to pass any law by which they might "provide for the general welfare," and they brought in the preamble to their aid; whilst others only claimed the privilege of providing for the general welfare in ALL cases in which there might be an application of the money to be raised by taxes. In this latter sense it was understood by the first Secretary of the Treasury, who maintained that there was "no room for doubt that whatever concerns the general interests of learning, of agriculture, of manufacturers, are within the sphere of the national councils, as far as regards an application of money." The effect of either of these constructions is to render nugatory the particular enumeration of powers. There was no necessity for a specific enumeration of authorities, the execution of which required the raising of money by taxes, and the expendi