1791.]

NATIONAL BANK.

455

and the like, by which the association is benefited, and no one is injured. A private bank might do every thing which this incorporated bank is permitted to do, but they could not do it with the same facility to themselves, or safety to the public.

That, according to all the rules for interpreting written instruments, they were justified in giving to the Constitution a liberal rather than a strict construction; the one being alone likely to fulfil the purposes of its framers, while the other would defeat them.

The importance, nay, the necessity of a bank, to enable the government to borrow money in a season of war, or other emergency, was proved when the Bank of North America was established by the old Confederation. As an example of implying powers in the government from their necessity, utility, and reasonableness, the removability of officers by the President was urged, the Constitution being silent on the subject, and the power of removal not being necessary, in the strict sense, for the execution of any other power.

It was said there was no motion in the Convention to give power to establish a bank, but merely to erect commercial corporations, which was negatived, as it ought to have been.

It was denied to be a monopoly, as the States may form similar corporations. They said it was not true that the Federal Government may not hold lands, as it may hold them by execution, conquest, or treaty; and, moreover, that Congress had often vested others with powers which itself could not exercise.

Replies to all these arguments were made by Messrs. Madison, Stone, and Gates.

The debate was closed on the eighth of February, when, on taking the question, there appeared to be

456

CONSTRUCTION OF CONSTITUTIONS.

[CHAP. V. thirty-nine votes in favor of the bill, and twenty against it. Here, too, the division was by a geographical lineall the dissentients being south of the Potomac, except Grout, of Massachusetts; and all the supporters of the bill being north, except Steele, of North Carolina, and Smith, of South Carolina.

The arguments on this subject are given more fully, because the same question was agitated on two occasions afterwards-in 1814, and 1832 to 1836—with yet more interest and vehemence, when the decision then made by large majorities in both Houses of Congress, and which had been previously sanctioned by the judiciary, and acquiesced in by the people for forty years, was reversed, and the authority of that reversal may, according to all present appearances, become permanent.

This question (as well as many others) affords a further illustration of the uncertainty which is inherent in the interpretation of all written constitutions; and that men will always be divided, not only about the meaning of the language used, but whether those fundamental laws should be construed in a liberal or strict sense.

On this subject, so fruitful of discord, and affording so much aliment to party spirit in free countries, it may be remarked, that in all doubtful cases, that is, cases in which the precepts of the Constitution are not clear and precise, there are two rules of construction, which seem to have very different degrees of merit.

One is, to try to find out the purpose or intention of the framers of the Constitution, from their arguments, and the circumstances of the times-showing the good sought to be attained or the evil to be remedied-and to make that intention the governing rule, as in the case of private testators.

Another is, to disregard all extrinsic circumstances, as

1791.]

BANK CHARTER.

457

leading to vagueness and uncertainty, and to consult the language alone as the only mode by which a certain and uniform rule is to be attained.

The public interest seems strongly to recommend the second rule; for, in the changes which time is ever bringing in human affairs, and in the progressive advancement of a nation, a course of policy which was wise at one time may not be so at another; and views which the framers of the Constitution entertained, and which, it must be recollected, were in the main speculative, may be proved, by the lights of experience, no longer expedient. It would, therefore, be impolitic to seek to give to such any additional force, by referring to the probable wishes of the framers. To make these wishes our guide, in doubtful cases of construction, would be to postpone experience to mere speculation.

The same considerations justify us in giving a large or a narrow construction to the terms of the Constitution, according as they will best promote the public interest and happiness. Such, indeed, has commonly been the prevalent course of the Legislature on all great questions; such, indeed, is the dictate of common sense in our practical application of every law, human or divine.

The bill which established the bank granted a charter for twenty years. Its capital was ten millions, of which one-fourth was to be paid in specie, and three-fourths in public stock. The government might subscribe to two millions of the stock. The bank was allowed to establish branches in any of the States, and to lend to the General government a sum not exceeding one hundred thousand dollars, or to any State more than fifty thousand dollars. It was subjected to prudent restrictions and regulations.

As the leading members of Congress were so divided about the constitutionality of a national bank, General

458

HARMER'S DEFEAT.

[CHAP. V. Washington, with his wonted anxiety to do right, and wise precautions to ascertain what was right, requested the opinions in writing of the members of his Cabinet, before he decided on giving his signature to the bill. The Secretary of State and Attorney-General were clear that Congress had not the power, while the other two members were as decided in the opposition. After well weighing these opinions, he concurred in the deci sion of Congress, and signed the bill. These opinions for and against the constitutionality of the bank, were drawn respectively by Mr. Jefferson and Mr. Hamilton, and exhibit their accustomed ability. Yet one can scarcely doubt that both of them were greatly influenced by the bearing the proposed institution was believed by each of the newly-formed parties to have on its respective interests, especially when it is recollected that so many leading politicians have, under the bias of party feelings, changed their opinions on this agitated subject.

In the preceding autumn, the expedition against the Indians on the Wabash, which was mentioned by the President, in his opening message, had not met with the success expected from it. The regular forces, amounting to three hundred and sixty men, under the command of General Harmer, who was a veteran of the Revolution, was joined by militia of Pennsylvania and Kentucky, so as to raise his force to above fourteen hundred men. In several rencounters with the Indians, the troops under Harmer had been repulsed with great loss, which induced the President to ask Congress to authorise the addition of another regiment to the regular force, and also to cause two thousand of new levies to be raised for six months.

At this session two new members were added to the Union. The people of Kentucky, who had been many

1791.]

ADMISSION OF KENTUCKY AND VERMONT.

459

years aiming to form a separate State, had at length obtained the consent of Virginia, the parent State; and having petitioned Congress to pass a law admitting them, a bill for this purpose was passed on the ninth of February, 1791.

A bill for the immediate admission of Vermont, in like manner originated in the Senate, and was passed by the House on the eighteenth of February, 1791.1

The local jealousy of political power was here manifested-as it long continued to be-in an unwillingness to make any addition to it either in the North or the South, without a corresponding addition in the opposite quarter.

On the third of March, the first Congress terminated by the provisions of the Constitution, having, in the course of three sessions in the two years, done all that was most essential to organize the new government, and to put it into efficient operation; and the course they cautiously and judiciously marked out has, with slight modifications, remained in force ever since.

'See Appendix No. VII. for a notice of the controversies respecting the territory of Vermont.