Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1811-07-01

sion OF the Judiciary may have on settling the
constitutlonality of the law Incorporating the
bank OF the United States is not intended to
DC urged by me as an argument, which in
my judgment ought to be relied on, because
conceive it the duty Of the Judiciary merely
to eXpound what is the law of Congress, and
to determine between law and the consti-
tuition IS assuming to the Judiciary a power
not appertaining to it-a power inconsistent
with the genius OF our constitution and such
a one as. if exercised by any judiciary, under
a popular government, will ultimately de-
stroy the government itself The inference
therefore which is derived from the reason
ing above insisted on, from the decisions of
the Judiciary, is intended for those who in
sist that your federal judiciary have a right
to decide on the constitutionality of any law
passed by Congress which comes under its
cosnizance. The aid ! myself derive from
the source OF precedent to support the con-
satutionality of this measure is solely from
the reiterated acts of different Congresses,
and the appreciation of different Presidents,
and the concurrence under them for the
space or more than 20 years during the pre-
valence OF different political parties. An at
tempt has been made by the hon. member
from tennessee and others, TO invalidate the
accuracy of the inference drawn from this
tA@HS-r-S va piCSCOSliNl ny INSISTING, l0aI the
bank law was in the nature of a contract
with individuals by which private right, be-
came vested, and therefore the government
was bound to carry it into effect. The gen
tleman from Tennessee imagines that during
the period or the republican administration
and majority in Congress, which acted upon
this bank law, it was considered in the ma
ture OF a contract, and as such government dc
termined to carry itinto effect with good faith,
and with that view passed the several corro-
borating laws which have been from time to
time enacted. But this reasoning, sir, of the
gentleman from Tennessee has been so fully
retuted by my honorable colleague, in the
very able speech he delivered on this question
some days past, as to obviate the necessity of
further commenting on it. ] will only repeat
one remark that was made by my colleague.
1T the bank law was unconstitutional at first
1t could not give any legal corporate exis-
tence to any body of men to form legal con-
tract in corporate character which had no
such existence. Therefore there existed no
legal contract; the faith of government was
not pledged; it was like a contract with a
married woman or an idiot; it was liso f1cto
void.
10 recapitulate, derive the power to Gre
ate national bank when this constitution
came into existence from the situation of So
ciety, and our legal institutions at that time.
and the difficulty, as things existed, that the
revenue could be collected with advantage in
any other way than by the agency of bank.
Ii this reasoning be deemed erroneous, in
sst that the constitutional power of Congress
to create bank was in the first instance
doubtful, and the principle having been re-
cognized, and having received every sanction
the government could give, and practised on
or
ed in question.
Admitting that on both these points nv
views are erroneous say that the establish
ment OF the bank at its commencement was
improper, still, lfit be demonstrated that the
existence or rechartering ofthe bank is indis-
pensible, or highly expedient at present, to
the due exercise OF enumerated rights Of Con-
gress, that which was improper or even per-
haps unconstitutional at first, because it was
not necessary, becomes constitutional & pro-
per because now expedient or essential. Con
gress are clothed by the constitution with a
variety OF delegated rights. Now, admitting
that the establishment of a bank in the first
instance was not necessary for the due exer-
else of the legislative rights bestowed in any
one OF these enumerated powers, if our pre-
decessors i'll office, by the creation Of bank,
which at best was an improper institution,
OSCduSC HOt necessary, nave pldCSQ our nSC2l
concerns in such situation that it cannot be
put down without great injury to the revenue,
which Congress is bound to levy and collect,
without injuring our commerce, without inn
pairing our public credit, without lessening
the public welfare, all of which Congress is
bound to provide for and protect; if this can
be demonstrated to be the probable result of
pulling down the bank at this period, would
ask whether that institution which was i'm
proper at first, because not necessary, does
not become proper, because almost indispcn-
sable at present.
In constituting the constitution Of the United
States, when legislating on the enumerated
powers of Congress, l lay down this rule of
construction: that the only limitation 70 the
power Of Congress is either some positive or
implied prohibition in the constitution itself,
or the exercise Of an honest and sober dis
cretion. 1t therefore there is any reason to
believe at the present period and existing
state of things, that by putting down the bank
Your revenue will be greatly impaired, your
commerce will be injured, thc public credit
lessencd, all Of which Congress is to protect
does not such state Of things make it proper
that that bank, which ought not 70 have been
created, because not necessary, now ought to
be continued because indispensable? il may
here DC said that ] arm varying the constitu-
ton 81 l say that a thing is proper to-day
which was not proper five and twenty years
L IL.