Alexandria gazette & daily advertiser. [volume] (Alexandria [Va.]) 1817-1822, 1819-07-03
SATURDAY, JULY 3, 1919.

those SDecinc OOJhCtiVus w wv pm" "
the supreme court, which are toJustliy the
v;rleut inrect,ves be has, So unsparIngly
bestowed on the judicial department.
Before noticing these objections, must
be allowed to observe that, in recapitula-
ting what he supposes himself to have es'
tabi>hed in his proceeding numbers, h.
entirely misrepresents what he has himself
attempted to prove.
After st ,ting that the clause containing
the wori Is necessary and proper was" tau
tologous and redundant" he adds, " |
have also! shown that, in that case, such
means were implied, AMI such only, as
were essential to eGectuate the power; and
that this is the case in all the codes OF the
law of nature, ofn atoms, Of war, OF reason,
AMI the common law. The means, and
the only means, admitted by them all, and
especially by the common law, are laid
down emphatically to be such, ur'thoaf
which, the grant cannot have its effect,
Can Hampton possibly believe that ne
has even attempted to show these things
Can he possibly have so far misunderstood
himself? Or does ne shift his ground TO
impose OH his readers Can he already
have forgotten that all his quotations and
all his Arguments apply to incidental
or additional powers, not tethe means
BY which powers are to be executed !Can
il have escaped his recollection that, so
far from even IN liking an effort to show that
by any law whatever, it is laid down
emphatically" that those means only may
be used in the execution OF the power
zsiihpnt whlch the grant cannot have ITS
effect" he has prescribed the term itself,
as one " broad enough to demolish the Ii
mits prescribed to the general government
nv the constitution" AS one which
might cover the latent designs of ambi-
ton ann change the nature of the gene
raj government p Does he not remem-
Der, OF does he suppose his readers will
nc, remember, the motives he ascrites to
the supre me court for {" trumpng up this
equally novel, underlined, and general
term {" will not retort on Hampden the
charge of" guis'' on this occasion, but
cannot leave him the advantage he claims,
of hsvi0g proved that which he has not e.
ven suggested have not controverted
his real proposition e" that the limited
grant to congress ct certain enumerated
powers. only carriei with il such addition
al powers as were fairly incidental to
them" But utterly deny that when
power is granted" those means ontP my
be used in its execution, aittout ah'rh the
grant cannot have its effect. utterly
deny that this proposition is maintained
in my code whatever, Wien the at
tempt 10 esta lish it shall be made II VIII
be true enough to show that it is totally
unsus aina5le.
| nov proceed to the errors ascrihed
by Hanpden,to the opinion OF the supreme
court.
The frs; is that the court has agreed
in favor of an enlarged construction otihe
clause authorizing congress &" to make all
laws necessary and proper for carrying
into execution" the powers vested in the
government.
Hampden does not venture to assert IN
express terms that the Court has ascrl-
bed to that clause the quality OF enlarg-
ing the powers Of congress, or OF enabling
the legislature to do that which it might
not have done had the clause been omit
ted. He knows well that such an assertion
would have been unfounded, for he says
" the supreme court itself admits that these
terms were used & only used. to remove all
doubts Of the implied powers of the ma
tionaI legislature in relation to the great
mass of concerns entrusted TO it. This
is an admission by the court that they
were not used for the purpose of enlarge
rnent"
Why then does he seek indirectly to I'M
press on the minds OF his readers this idea
known to himself to be incorrect?
But will advert to the partic uar Instan-
ces ofthis error, which he has selected IN
support of his charge.
The frs, is that the supreme court has
said thu this clause " is placed anons the
poweis 1.-the government, and not among
the imi'ations on those powers.