Southern Argus. [volume] (Columbus, Miss.) 1834-1842, 1841-08-31

1915; and in the following year ,Ooh7
,yress passed bank charter which re-
moved his objections tothe expedlen-
CIV. and he signed the bill. Here,
rLsn. were The illustrions names ct
Thomas Jefferson and James Madison
rhe one affirming the power OF Con-
qress to extend the powers OF a bank
already in existence, the other TO es-1
nblish new bank. There they stood |
in company with the name of George |
Washington, on the records of the |
Government, as sanctioning the power.
Mr.. S. stoodstood upon the record
Nor would it DO to tell him that the as
sent was extorted by necessity; the
moment any man resored TO that ar
gument, he surrendered the question
olunccnstitutionality;f the charterwas
rendered constitutional by case Of ur-
gent necessity, then twas constitution
y now, the necessity only being shown
TO exist.
Congress had again been called to-
vote on the question in 1897. | had
s then more then a glimps OF that great
substitute for all things, called the
Sub-Treasury, or the 'gndependent
Treasury" To prepare the way for
that iavorite measure, the chairman Of
che Committee of Ways and Means
had brought in a resolution, declaring
what! that twas unconstitutional to
establish bank of the United States?
No; but that it was iHerpedieRt; which
must be construed to mean that, as the
Snb-Treasury would be adequately
to the supply of all fiscal wants Of the
Government, therefore, national
bank would not be required. Would
gentlemen tell him that, under this al
legation, viz: that to create bank was
inexpedient, there was contained the
proposilionthat It was unconstitution-
al? This would be TO attempt TO do
what was no less intellectually than
physically impossible, viz: make the
less contain the greater. Ii the bank
was unconstitutional, then the question
of its expediency was not open; if then
The House voted it to be meXpedient,
they voted in way which implied
that, if it had been expedient, they
would have had right to grant the
charter.
This, Mr.. s. said,was hasty glance
al the legislative action in relation to
the question; and, without going any
further, he might here stop and ask
if any candid man would now alledge
that national bank isin itself uncon-
constitutional?
He next pro cecded to look at the
judicial recognition Of its constitution
alitv which had taken place. They
were, indeed, inGnite, too numerous
for particular reference, and in every
variety of form: but, without regarding
these, Congress had two express and
solemn decisions on the direct ques-
tons, viz: one iuthe celebrated case OF
McCulloch rs. the State of Maryland,
and the other that Of Osborne against
the Bank Of the United States. What
was the question: 1t was! one which
arose undcr the Constitution and laws
Of the United States; ana what was The |
Jurisdiction Of the Supreme Court on
such question: 1t was final and con
elusive over all subordinate tribunals;
It's decision settled the law. In this
case its Jurisdiction was exclusive'and
every citizen might 90 into court with
It's decision as being of final authority
AGAINST which no objection would lie
ostothe uncoastitutiouality ofthe bank,
what anomaly would it bethat that which
is declared by the supreme tribunal OF
the country TO be a constitutional law
binding on the whole land and every
individual in it, should be held not to
no constitutional? If a mar should be
sved bv the bank, could he not plead
,bs, the bank was constitutional
Certainly not; because its constitu-
tionality was settled question.
He did not indeed pretend that the
authority Of such decision extended
10 opinions; it was not necessary to m
s;st ON any such thing; but it extended
to rights. A man might retain the
same opinion aherthe decision that he
held before it, las happened in all
courts every day,) but when the ques-
ton was as to the right Of the country
to have what, according to the Language
ofthe old Congress, was "indispensa'
bic" to it, then no one was at liberty
TO cou,rovert their rights any more thar
he would be IN court.
On this point, Mr.. S. wonld lay
down modest and reasonable propo
sition, which he hoped none would
DENY. lie had referred to Mr.. jeff
erson's signing a bill for the New
Orleans branch in 1904, and Mr.
Madison's signing the charter OF tb'
bank in 1916, after having, In 1919
given his objections TO IT: in that cas'
he considered the question of consti
tutionality settled; not only as to the
existing bank, but on the question o
the rights ofthe people Of the United
States 10 have bank whenever they
wishit. Now he asked whether, ii
signing that bill, Mr.. Madison had ever