The Massachusetts spy. [volume] (Worcester [Mass.]) 1831-1858, 1832-10-10

settled Every process ano every mode of
lrial Known 10 the constitution and laws has
been exhausted and always, and without ex
ceptlnn, The decision has been in favor Of the
validity of tho law. But all this practice, all
TINS precedent. all this public appreciation. all
inns solemn adjudication directly on the point
Is to be dlsregarded and rejected and the con.
s'hHl'"n:i power fatty denied And, Sir, if we
are startled at this conclusion. surprise will
moi ne iessened when we examine the argument
by which it is maintained.
BY the Constitution, Congress is authorized
! 10 pass all laws necessary and prnner'' for
carrying ITS own legislative powers into effect.
! congress has deemed bank tn be " necessary
ana proper, Tor these purposes, and it has
therefore established bank. But although the
law has been passed, and the bank established.
and the constitutional validity of its charter
soiemnly adjndged, yet, the President pro-
nonnces 1t unconstitutional, because some of
Inc powers bestowed on the bank are in his
opinion, not necessary or proper II would an
pear that powers, which in 1901 and 1916. in
time OF Washington, and in the time of Madj-
son; were deemed necessary and proper" are
no longer 10 be SO regarded, and therefore the
bank is unconstitutional 1t has really come
| to this, that the constituti0nality of bank is
to depend upon the opinion one particular
man may furm of the utility or necessity of
some OF the clauses in its charter If that indi-
Vdna chooses to think that particular power
contained IN the charter is not necessary To the
proper constitution of the bank, then the act is
unconstitutional
Hitherto it has always been supposed that
the question was Of a very different nature II
has been thought that the policy of granting
particular charter may be materially dependent
on The structure, and organization, and powers
Of the proposed institution But its general
pOnSt lii u hac hacora boa
stood to turn on such points. This would be max
ing its constitutionaity depend on subordinate
questions, on questions Of expedicncv, and unes
lions of detail upon that which one man NAV
think necessary, and another may not If the
constitutional question were made to hinge on
matters Of this kind, how could it ever be de-
cided? All would depend on conjecture, on the
complexinnal feeling, on the prejudlces, on the
passions of individuals, or more or less pract-
cal skill, or correct judgment, in regard to
banking operations, among those who should
be the judges, OH the impulse of momentary
interest, party objects, or personal purposes
Put the question, in this manner, to a court of
Judges, to decide whether a particular bank
was constitutional, and i; might be doubtfu
whether they would come to any result, as
they might well hold very various opinions on
the practical utility Of many clauses OF the
charter.
The question, in that case, would be. not
whether the bank in its general Frame oharac.
Ter and objects. was proper instrument to
carry into effect The powers Of the government :;
but whether the particular powers direct or in
cidental, conferred on a particular bank, were
better calculated Than all others 10 give sue
cess TO its. operations. For if not, then the
charter wonld be unwarranied, according to
this sort of reasoning, by the Constitution.
This mode of constituting the Constitution is
certainly novel discovery. Its merits belong
entirely TO the President and his advisers Ac
cording to this rule of Interpretation ifthe Pres.
ident should be of opinion that the capital of
the bank was larger, By thousand dollars, than
1t ought tn be or that the tine for the contin-
uance of the charter, was year too long or
that 1t was unnecessary to require it, under
penalty, TO pay specie or needless 10 provide
t7r P1an'~hi"g, Ne e-rSary, Al ~~~.-f-:':-r sc
ITS bills; either of these reasons would lie suffi-
cient to render the charter. in his opinion, un,
constitutional, invalid, and nugaiory This is
legitimate conclusion from the argument. Such
view of the subject has certainly never before
been taken. This strain Of reasoning has hith-
erto not been heard, within the halls of Con-
gress, nor has any one ven:ured upon it before
the tribunals of justice The first exhibition
It's hrst appearance, as an argument, is in a mes
sage of the President of the United States
According TO that mode of constituting the con-
stituton which was adopted ny Congress in
1891, and approved by Washington, and which
has been sanctioned by the judgment of the
Supreme Court, and affirmed by the practice of
near forty years. the question upon the consti-
nationality Of the Bank involves two inquiries
first whether bankin its general character, and
with regard TO tine general objects with which
! Banks are usually connected, be, in itself, fit
means, suitable instrument, TO carry into eff
feet the powers granted TO the government.
fit be so, then the second, and the only 9TH
er question is whether the powers given in
particular charter are appropriate for bank. If
they are powers which are appropriate for a
bank, powers which Congress may fairly con-
slider TO be useful 20 the bank or the country,
then Congress may confer these powers be.
cause the discretion to be exercised in framing
the constitution Of the bank belongs to Con
gress. One man may think the granted pow
er not Indispensable to the particular bank /;
another may suppose them lnjud;cious, or iniu-
rious third may imagine that other powers
il granted in their stead would be more beneG-
cial but all these are matters of expedency.
about which men may differ and the power of
deciding upon them belongst1 Congress again
repeat sir, that il for reasons Of this kind the
President sees fit to negative a bill on the
ground of its being inexpcdient or impolitic, he
has right to do 50; but remember, sir, that
are now on the Constitutional question -
Remember that the argument of the President,
| is, that because powers were given 10 the bank
| by the charter Of 1916, which he thinks not
/ necessary, that charter is unconsLitut ional-
| Now, sir, it will hardly be denied or rather il
! was not denied or doubted before this message
! came to US, that if there was 10 be bank, the
powers and duties of that bank must be pre-
serihed in the law creating it. Nobody but
Congress, it has been thought could grant these
| powers, and privileges, prescribe their limi.
latious. 1t is true indeed that She message
| pretty plainly ntimates that the President
should have been first consulted, and that he
should have had the framing of the bill but we
! are not yet accustomed TO that order of things
in enacting laws, nor do know a parallel TO
this claim, thus now brought forward except
that in some peculiar cases in England highly
affecting the royal prerog atives the assent oil
the monarch is necessary, before either the
house Of peers, or his majesty's faithful com.
mons are permitted to act upon the subject, OF
to entertain its consideration. But surprising
sir, that our accustomed forms and republican
principles, are still TO be followed, and that
law creating bank is, like other laws, to orgi
nate with Congress. and that the President ha
nothing to do with il, TIL it is presented for hi
approval, then it is clear that the powers and du
tics of proposed bank, and all the terms ant
conditions annexed 10 it, must, in the first plac,
be settled by Congress. This power If consti
ulional at all, is only constitutional in tn,
hands Of Congress. Any where else its exer
csc would DO plain usnrpation. II, then, In
authority to decide what powers ought to b
: granted to bank, belong to Congress, and Con
gress shall have exercised that power, it woul
seem little better than absurd TO say that il
act, nevertheless, would be unconstitutional an