Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1819-04-02
ON THE OPINION OF THE SUPREME
COURT. NO. 2.

Il " EOIiOR Of
SIR-The other principle contained in
the decision of the supreme court, which
| appIebeDd 10 be of dangerous cousr-
quence, and on which propose Ia make
some remarks, is, iiiai the grant of pow
ers TO Congress which may be " necessa-
~ and proper" 10 carry into execution The
other powers granted 10 them, or 90 any
department OF the government, ought 10
restrcted sense.
The danger arising from implied pow
ers has always been seen and felt by the
people of the states These who oppos-
ed lie constitution always apprelefuied,
that the powers ofthe federal government
would be enlarged so much by The force
OF implication as 10 sweep Oft every yes
tige of power from the state govern
ments. Tie progress of the government
from the commencement OF il 10 this
day, proves that their fears are moi wilii-
out foundation. To cOlinicract that ire
sistible tendency In the federal govern
meni to enlarge their own dominion, the
vigilance OF the people and state govern
ments should constantly be exertfd.
The Is, clause of the 9Th sect OF the CON
stitution is, that Congress shall have pow
er to yand collect taxes, duties, imposts,
and excuses, 10 pay the debts and provide
for the common defence, and general rel
fare ofthe u. States" and line last clause
of the same section is. "tO make all laws
which shall be necessary and proper for
carrying into execution the foregoing
powers, and all other powers vested by
this constitution in the government, of the
United States or any departments or officer
thereof.
Although every one admits that the
government Of the United States is one
of limited powers; that il cannot exer-
else any, bat such as are actually granted,
yet so @ide is the latitude given TO the
words general welfare" in one of these
clauses, and TO the word necessary" i'm
the other, that il will, Gf the construction
be persisted in( really become govern
ment Of almost unlimited powers. If
such consequence will necessarily re-
suit from the liberal construction which
has been conieBdcd for, ought we not to
recur 10 first principles, and change that
construction Although the supreme
court has attempted To establish the IL
beral meaning of the word accessory as
the settled construction of the coDstitu-
lion, or rather 10 josie il from its place,
and substitute another word for il, vet
trust that neither tke Congress, nor The
President, will considerthemselves bound
by that decision in any future case, but
will pursue the true meaning of the con-
siitution, and not usurp powers never
granted to them.
Why did the trainers of the cons,itu-
ton use the word necessary? Tney had
other words at their command. " hicb they
might have used, if tbcse other words
had conveyed the id.as which they had
in their minds. Wouid they not have said
ifthey SO Intended il, that Congress shall
have power 10 make all laws which NAV
be useful, or convenient, or conducive to the
eftectaal execution of the foregoing pow
ere Will any man assert that The word
necessary is SYNONYMOUS with those
other words Ii certainly is not. Why
| then should we change its meaning2
But, says the chief justice, this word
y necessary" is susceptible of degrees of
| comparison, and as proof that in Ibis
clause il is not used TO denote the great
est degree OF necessity, lie instances "a
part OF The 10th section. No state shall
lay any duties except what be A." absolutely
necessary" for executing its inspection
laws. apprehend hat nothing is gained
by this example. What is absclutely nc.
cessary, is only positively necessary, that
II is said that in asceriainiBg The mean
ing OF The word, we may derive some
aid from That with which il is asso-
cisied." The word "propcr" is associated
with II, and my inference from that asso-
citation is directly The reverse of that of
the supreme court. The wore" proper"
has the larger meaning, and The word" ne
cesSary' restricts that meaning. Suppose
Tie word necessary had been omitted
Then Congress might have made all laws
which might be " proper, !" that is suitable,
orr for carrying into execution Tie other
powers; IN laai case they would have
had wider field Of discretion tlicy
would then have only been Obliged to
enquire what were the suitable means 10
aitdiR tie desired end. bui then comes
Tic more important restriction Aiter
YOU have asceriaiGed iiie means which
are suitable, or proper, you mus: 20
iGrtlser and ascertain whether iAey ase