Alexandria gazette & daily advertiser. [volume] (Alexandria [Va.]) 1817-1822, 1819-05-17

the aid OF latitudinous, or Hperai
construction-bu relies decidedly and
confidently, on its true meaning, taking
into view the subject, the context, and the
intention of the trainers of the constitu-
ton"
Ought any other rule to have been "a
'dopted?
Amphyction answers this question in
the affirmative. This word, he contends,
and indeed, all the words Of the constltu-
ton, ought to be understood in restrict
ed sense and for not adopting his rule,
the supreme court has drawn upon itself
his heaviest censure.
The contest then, so far as profession
goes, is between the fair sense of the words
used in the constitution and a restricted
sense. The opinion processes to found it.
self on the fair Interpretation. Amphyc-
ton processes to condemn that opinion be-
cause il ought to have adopted the restrict
ed Interpretation.
The counsel for the state of Maryland
had contended that the clause authorising
congress g to pass all laws accessory and
proper TO carry into execution the various
powers vested in the government, restrain
ed the power which congress would O.
therwise have possessed-and the reason
ing of Amphyction would seem to support
the same proposition.
This question is OF real importance to
the people of the United States. If the
rule contended for would not absolutely
arrest the progress Of the government, it
would certainly deny to those who admin
lister it tie means of executing its &C
knowledged powers in the manner most
advantageous to those for whose benefit
they were conferred.
To determine whether the one course or
the other be most consistent with the cor
sttution. and with the public good, let the
principles laid downb the counsel for the
state of Maryland, as stated in the opinion
OF the court, and the principles of Amphyc-
ton as stated by himself, be examined and
compared with the reasclDg which mas
been so bitterly execrated.
/ The counsel for the state of Maryland,
as we are informed, commended that the
word " necessary" limits the right OF Con-
gress to pass laws for the execution of the
specific powers granted by the constitution
"to such as are Indispensable, and without
which the power would be mug atory, that
it excludes the choice ofmeans, and leaves
TO Congress in each case that only which is
most direct and simple"
| ,Amphyction contends that necessary
means are those means 7U'hont lshich the
! end could not be. obtained" ''When
law is about 10 pass, the inquiry" he says,
(which ought to be made by Congress is,
| does the constitution expressly grant the
power? lfnot, then, is this law one pitb-
ont ach,ch some power cannot be exc
cuted? If il is not, then it is power re-
served 10 the sta.es, or to the people, and
we may not use the means, nor pass the
law"
With some variety of expression, the po-
siton maintained in the Argument of The
cause, and that maintained by Amphyclion,
are the same. Both contend that congress
can pass no laws to carry into execution
their specific powers, but such As are mdis.
pensabiy necessary that they can employ
no means but those liutOut avhich the end
could not be obtained.
Let US apply this rule to some of the
powers delegated to the government.
Congress has power to lay and collect
taxes.
According to the opinion Of the Supreme
Court, Congress may exercise this power
in the manner most beneficial to the people,
and may adopt those regulations which are
adapted 20 the object, and will best accom-
plish it. But according TO AmphyCtion,
the enquiry must always be, whether the
particular regulation be one aclthom ssh'cA
the power could not be executed. If the
power could be executed 10 any other way
the law is, in bis opinion, Unconstitutional.
Look at our tax laws. Observe their
complex and multi!arious regulations. All
Of them, no doubt, useful, aid conducting
directly to the end all of them essential
to the beneficial exercise of the power
But how many may be indispensably ne
cessnru. Lo,r rnanu may he such that