Alexandria daily gazette, commercial & political. [volume] (Alexandria [Va.]) 1808-1812, 1811-05-28
CONGRESS.
r.,a,E OF. THE UNITED S7.aIEs
rMr. GILES Speech in continuation
IN SENATE.

4
c.orria. (Mr. Crawford in the conciusioiis h0
drew against this argument OF the iinpefious
nb;oation due to contracts under the influence
oft6is law: bat not precisely for the reasons
No ass;oned for them. The gentleman OBJ
served, that it was essential III inc io' ,
nj contracts that there should DC PAltioa' Oh"
a Consideration. That under the nanh Id"
there was no sufficient consideration LOT inc
formation Of contract. liz this l am inclined
r. think the gentleman is mistaken. pre-
spn,e the mistake has arisen from an lnalteh-
| tin, m the circum stances under which the law
was nassedunder the terms of the Law there
we're facilities given to the United States by
the bank of vcly considerable value Inc
bonus given was certainly suf1cient cohsi-
deration to make the contract binding on inc
nart of the United States. But have several
objections to this argument urged against INC
bill ; in the first place, parties, ana co'isi'
Iteration, are not only essential to the 1orrlia-
ton of contract, but parties eafa6fe OF con-
tracing. If the bank law be unconstltution'
al. then it cannot, as | conceive, give con-
stfu,ionaL cahacity to the artificial person Gre
ated bv it to contract An unconstitutional COR
poratiop has no more constitutional or legai
even all idiot each equally laboring under le-
gal disabilities. The argument, therefore,
which is usett shewt hat the bank law IS un-
constitutional, S at the same time gave q co"-
stitutionQL cGtocity to an arlhcla person "
contract, appears TO me TO be In the nature OF
a fclo de Sc, it destroys itself. Hence con-
cludc, that if the law be unconstitutional In IT.
self it cannot confer on an artificial person
legal capacity TO contract; and that any con-
tract made under its influence, would De void
for the want of that legal capacity. In the
next place, if it be urged that Congress is
bound to carry into effect all contracts IN
which individual rights or interests are con-
cerned then Congress may IN this way de-
rive to itself all the powers 1t may want tor
an object, instead Of getting them by the short
er route of the assumption under the terms
common defence and general welfare; and In
a much more exceptionablc mode because 1t
may not only thus acquire any power what
ever; but may also acquire it in perpetuity.---
Hence it appears to me that If gentlemen
should succeed in establishing this argument,
they would lose more by the admission, than
they would gain by limiting the powers OF
Congress TO the enurlerations Of the constitu-
y
ed worse than nusatory By this admission
But have third objection to this argyll
ment Of the obligation of the contract, more
formidable than either of the preceding 1t
appears to RE to be an argument against atact.
| know it is so, as it respects myself. have
been present when most of these ac4ulesclng
laws have been passed, and l have no recol-
lection Of having beer influenced in the votes
] gave in their favor by view Of the sacred
obligations due to contracts; nor do | recel-
lcct to have heard this consideration urged by
any gentleman at the time Of passing these Sc
yeral laws. In fact at the time OF passing the
law for Furnishing counterfeiting tine bills OF
the bank o. the United States, | recollcct no
other consideration operating on me, than the
information, that certain unpriRcipled indivi-
duals were counterfeiting bills in general cir
culation, to the great injury of the honest part
of the community. thought such conduct
ought to be suppressed, and therefore voted
for Furnishing all who should be engaged III 1t
without much attention to the constitutional
question respecting the bank law. ! cannot,
without some violation to my feelings, agree
10 have any of my public conduct propped up
BY an after-thought, nor by any other consi-
derations, than those which operated at the
time. These remarks, however, will certainly
rot apply to those gentlemen who voted IN
der the suggested impressions. The general
principle operating with me, was this--that
all laws passed by Congress must be consi-
dered as constitutional until they arc repealed.
Their unconstitutionality is good reason, and
the best reason, for their repeal but so long
as they remain in the statute book unrcpealed
they must be considered constitutional, and
in my Judgment no tribunal on earth can 9ues-
ton their validity nor can admit, that they
are subject to the censorial power claimed by
the judiciary. / am, therefore, disposed TO
admit the acquiescence in the bank law, and
to give the gentlemen in favor of renewal all
the advantage of the prccedents quoted by
them for that object, considered under all the
circumstances Of the case S. to what do they
amount? Will they go so far as to preclude
the present congress from exercising its sound
discretion upon the constitutional question,
when brought directly to its consideration !?
and when AZ the time of thc several rrece