Madison Whig advocate. [volume] (Canton, Miss.) 1839-1841, 1839-10-05

Convention which framed the Constituticn
and they were equally divided on the 80 g
pass the bill, viz Ayes, George Clymer,
Thomas Fitzsimmone, Nicholas Giimsu ana
Roger Sherman.-The Nays were. Abzshani
Baldwin. Daniel Carroll, james MadisoR and
Huph Williamson. From this numbe(A
the name Of Madison, who, as "ill show be-
fora 7 conclude these numbers, retracfed his
on;n,on ON this q question and became the advo-
cate Of National Bank, and the vote in the
House will stand .fpe for and three only against
the bank.
In the Senate there was much larger, ana
wha, NAV be called an overwhelming majority
in favor of the bank The ayes were, Richard
Bassett, John Dickerson, Williams Johnson,
4I{us King, John Langdon and Robert Morris,
[s. The nsys, Pierce Butler-l- And General
Washington, who was then President and con-
.t;tuted the third department of the govern
ment, was also. in favor OF It.
Taking the President and the two houses to-
re,ber and the votes OF all the members of the
Congress of 1891, who were members of the
Convention, will stand thus In favor of the
bank u.-Against it, only 5. Andif we
take from the latter the vote of Mr. Madison,
who afterwards became one of the bank party,
the votes would stand 10 for and against the
bank -. Three TO IN It's faror
Such was the origin of the first National
Bank under our present Constitution-such Is
ga ptc of those who participated IN framing
il affok long, able, and elaborate discussion
of all whose parts of the Federal compact,
which had or was supposed TO have a bearing
upon the constitutional question. And yet,
daily meet with individuals of every grade OF
intelligence, from the ignoramus to the best
informed, who, when you broach the subject
of National Bank TO them and they cannot
DENY the great utility of such an institution
both to the government and the people, shell
ter themselves behind the hackneyed and for
midable objection that at as demonstrations
ap'.. AMI the majority of these individuals,
do sincerity believe, have read the
Constitution much less the history of its for
nation and adoption.
When 1 reflect that all the great Juists of
which country can boast-the Storys. the
Kcnts, the Gastons and the Marshalls, whose
minds were competent to investigate all the
subjects which are "caculated TO try the
clearness, the force ard the comprehension OF
the human intellectf-I say, when l reflect
that these squire inteligences, these links be-
tween men and angels,'' have given it as their
opinion that bank is constitutional, and look
around upon the petty jurists who express an
opposite opinion, IS am lost in amazement ~
am forcibly reminded of the eloquent eulogy
in which Mr.. Writ contr asted the mind of Sir
Robert Boyle with those of the " petty infidels
and deists with whichthe world swarms >,
Have they seen arguments against religion,
which not presented to Sir Robert Boyle!
His religious works show they have not. Are
their judgments better able to weigh those ar
guments than his was They have not the
vanity to believe it. Is the beam of their iud q
ments more steady, and less liable TO be dis
turbed by passion than his : o no; for in
this he seems to have excelled all mankind
Are their minds more elevated and more capa-
bic of comprehending the whole of this great
subject, with all its connections and dePenden-
cies, than was the mind of Sir Robert BOYLE
Look at the n.e7, and the question is answer
60. How then does it happen that they have
osen conducted TO a conclusion, SO perfectly
the reverse of his 1t is for this very reason
because their judgments less extricated
from the influence and raised above the msts
OF passion it is because their minds are less
ETHEREAL and comprehensive less capable than
his was /" to look through nature up to natures
God.'s
Let the reader but substitute constitutional
for religious opinion, the host of great jurists
and statesmen who havs. expressed their opin-
ions in favor of the power to charter bank.
the petty jurists and street politicians for the
infidels, and the above extract will express my
idea of the contrast.
lam well aware that il has been said, that a
proposition made in the Convention which
formed the Constitution to give to Con-
gress the express power to grant charters of in
corporation generally, and rejected. And this
is relied upon circumstance 10 prove that
the convention did not intend to give to Con- |
gress the power TO establish bank. But il
does not necessarily follow that, when the
Convention denied, Gf it be that they di d
SOY the power to incorporate generally, there |
fore, they did not intend that Congress should |
make such corporation under any such cir |
instance, if the exercise of
,r nJh power should be considered necessary |
of the exoress nosv e,a effect any one or all |
BY no means, for in this case the 9th Section @
gives the " necessary and proper'' or what are |
called incidental powers
But. if such proposition was in fact made. /
Il does not appear on achat ground its rejection
rested. Itniay have been because they DEEM
ed such power necessarily implied. A nd this
IS nota little strengthened by thu ia
that the only Presidents We have had, who were
mem bers OF the Convention, were thew who
'igned both OF our bank charters respectively: Il
J" ashlngfon IN 1871, and Madison in 1916
And are there any SO hardy as to charge the IL
ustriOus soldier and statesman, who presided
over the deliberations of that Convention, who
must. consequently have been cognizant of ey-
ny important proposition thar was therein
made, with, 50 shortly afterwards assuming
md sanctioning the exercise of power which
e must have known was not intended to be
,ranted Such charge directly made would
. too ridiculous to be countenanced even by
x<ufv H. /