But the terms of the Constitution are amply large enough to embrace this power. In view then, both of the intention of its framers, and of its own terms, it should be understood to vest this power in Congress. They have the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties," etc., and "to provide for the common defence and general welfare of the Union;" of course if they judge that the latter object can best be effected by imposts and regulations of trade, they have the right to seek it by those means.

It is manifest from the history of the Constitution that one object of it was to encourage manufactures and agriculture by laws framed for that purpose.

Weighty opinions are also on the same side. Mr. Madison, a member of the Convention, in a letter dated Sept. 10, 1828, after quoting the views of several States, at the adoption of the Constitution, to that purpose, adds, "But ample evidence may be found elsewhere, that regulations of trade, for the encouragement of manufactures, was considered as within the power to be granted to the new Congress, as well as within the scope of the national policy.

"If Congress have not the power to encourage manufactures, it is annihilated for the nation, a policy without example in any other nation, and within the reason of the solitary one in our own.

"That the encouragement of manufactures was an object of the power to regulate trade, is proved by the use made of the power for that object, in the first session of the first Congress under the Constitution, when among the members present, were so many who had been members of the federal Convention that framed the Constitution."

The act alluded to was the second act of the first session of the first Congress, and was signed by President Washington, himself a member of the federal Convention. The preamble of that act was in these words: "Whereas it is necessary for the support of government, for the discharge of the

What is said of the terms of the Constitution?

What is then the argument? What farther argument?
What is manifest from the history of the Constitution?

Whose opinion is quoted? What ample evidence does he say may be found?

To pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts, and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

debts of the United States, and the encouragement and protection of domestic manufactures, that duties be laid on goods, wares and merchandises imported."

It is manifest also from subsequent practice. On this Mr. Madison also says: "A further evidence in support of the Constitutional power to protect and foster manufactures by regulations of trade, are evidence that ought of itself to settle the question, is, the uniform and practical sanction given to the power, by the general government, for nearly forty years, with the concurrence of every State government, throughout the same period; and it may be added, through all the vicissitudes of party which marked the period."

The utility, or equity, of a particular tariff, is quite another question. Congress may err in the use of their discretionary power, with regard to the amount of duties, and the articles on which they are laid; but still their acts may be constitutional. The question, however, between the advocates of protection and free trade must be decided by experience. A year of experience is worth an age of theory.

"To pay the debts and provide for the common defence," etc. It is a question whether this clause is a separate one from the former, and gives a separate and substantial power to Congress, or not. The grammatical construction favors this view, as do some of the best judgments; also carefully considered editions of the Constitution. Other editions are different, also other judgments, among which is Mr. Jefferson's. They would consider the whole as equivalent to this:

From what else is this power manifest? Whose opinion is here quoted? What farther evidence does he give? What weight does he attach to this evidence?

What had concurred with the general government in this sanction? What of the utility or equity of a particular tariff?

In what may Congress err? Will that make their acts unconstitutional?

How must the question between the advocates of protection and free-trade be decided?

Which is worth most, experience or theory?

What question respecting this clause? What authorities pro and

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, etc. for the purpose of paying the debts, and providing for the common defence," etc. Nothing very important, however, depends on the decision of this question.

"To borrow money on the credit of the United States." In connection with the power to borrow money, a long and able discussion was held on giving Congress the power to "emit bills of credit," i. e. issue paper money for the payment of Government debts, and for circulation as the representative of gold and silver. The experience under the Confederation of depreciated and worthless paper alarmed many members very much, and determined them, if possible, to shut every door against the repetition of such disaster. Others again saw the possibility, as they thought, that such a resort might be much needed. The revolutionary war, it was said, could never have been sustained without the emission of paper money. The power finally was not given; but it was understood, of course, that as Congress could borrow money on the credit of the United States, they could give the promissory note or bond of the government for the security of the debt so incurred; and so for any claim against the government, whether for service or interest. It is of course judged to be constitutional to issue Treasury notes, while at the same time a question is raised as to the constitutionality of a United States' bank. This is a question on which doctors disagree; this fact should make others modest in the expression of opinions, while it also gives them a chance to speak without censure.

How did Mr. Jefferson understand it?

What discussion in connection with borrowing money?

What is it to emit bills of credit?

What experience under the Confederation?

How did some members feel? What were they determined to do? What did others see? What example?

Was the power given to Congress to emit bills of credit? Was it withholden?

Do you think the Constitution would in any case warrant them in emitting bills of credit?

What was understood? What is judged constitutional?

What question has been raised? Who disagree on it?

Who are doctors? What of this fact?

The rule is, if a power is not expressly given, it must, to be constitutional, be implied. Is the power to incorporate a bank given to Congress, then, by implication? If so, it is in the last clause of this Section, - " To make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers," etc. Mr. Jefferson says that a measure, in order to be necessary for carrying a power into execution, must be such, and the power to adopt it such, that without it, the power it was intended to carry into execution must be nugatory. But the aid of a bank is not necessary to carry on any operation of government. It is therefore unconstitutional, he says, for Congress to incorporate a bank. But indeed what can be named as necessary in this sense? What methods would Mr. Jefferson propose? "Bills of exchange, and treasury drafts," he says, will answer the purposes of government. But would that great man say that such instruments are so necessary that without them any powers of Congress would be nugatory? Cannot the operations of government be carried on without them? Besides, he proposes another way, which is by the aid of "existing banks." Are not "bills of exchange and treasury drafts," then, by his own showing, unconstitutional? And would not every possible way of managing the financial concerns of the government be unconstitutional, in his sense, because not necessary, so long as there remains another way that the work might be done? A bank of the United States is unconstitutional, because the purposes of government may be answered by other means. Of course, those other means are unconstitutional, because the purposes of government may be answered by a bank. It seems as if Mr. Jefferson's reasoning would lead us in this train.

The advocates of

a

bank explain necessary, in the Constitution, to mean no more than " needful, requisite, incidental, useful, or conducive to." Not necessary in such sense as to be essential to the existence, or actual validity of any power vested in Congress. If a measure comes before Congress,

What rule is laid down?

Where is the power given to Congress, if at all, to incorporate a bank?

What does Mr. Jeffersou say as to a measure's being necessary? What is his reasoning? Is any measure necessary in this sense? What measures does Mr. J. propose instead of a bank? Are these

measures necessary, in his sense?

What other method does he name? What does this prove, by his showing?

What, by this rule, would be true of every way?

Give the argument concisely?

How do the advocates of a bank explain necessary?

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;

recommending itself to them by its own nature as eligible for, and adapted to, the purpose of carrying into execution any powers vested in them, they say Congress is at liberty to adopt it, though they know that the objects of it may be answered in a variety of ways.

On the whole, if an opinion may be expressed here, it is that the aid of a bank, bills of exchange, and treasury drafts, the assistance of State banks, the actual transfer of gold and silver, and perhaps many other ways, are all among the methods by which certain powers of Congress may be carried into execution; and among all that are not prohibited, they are at liberty to choose that which, in their best judgment, is on all accounts most eligible and conducive to the end proposed.

President Washington signed the bill incorporating the bank of 1791. It would seem that some changes of opinion on the subject took place, for President Jefferson signed a bill establishing a branch bank at New Orleans, and President Madison, who had been a leading and powerful opponent of the first bank in 1791, and that too on the ground of its unconstitutionality, approved and signed the bill incorporating the second bank in 1816.

"To regulate commerce with foreign nations." In addition to the power to lay and collect duties on foreign merchandize, they have the power to regulate all the circumstances of trade, and prescribe the terms of all manner of intercourse between the United States and other countries.

"And among the several States." This must of course mean commerce that concerns more States than one. That which concerns but one, is under the cognizance of that one alone. The great difficulty here arose from the fact that the

When do they say that Congress may adopt a measure?

What opinion is expressed here?

Who signed the bill incorporating the bank of 1791?
What appearance of change of opinion in others?

Have you an opinion on the constitutionality of a U. S. bank ?
What difference do you see between the constitutionality and the

expediency of a bank or any other measure?

How does the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations extend?

What commerce between the States is meant?

Can Congress direct commerce that concerns but one State?