Staunton spectator, and general advertiser. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 183?-1849, 1844-03-07
"rlIE FAIR PROP0SITI0N."-No. 3.
THE BANK QUESTiON-CoNr,y

Al the close Of our last number, on the subjec,
of the Bank, we adver,ed TO an argument which
Is often urged against the ons,iutionaliy of such
an Institution, derived from the refusal OF the
Convention 10 give to Congress the general pow
or ITO grant letters Of incorporation for Ca
nals' %c. This is nut forth with grea. g.avity
as conclusive objection To- the mower to grant M,
act of incorporation for any purpose. II is re.
gaFued as negative pregnant, which is equva.
lent 10 direct and positive prohibiiion ..Whaii'
eXcialm these gentlemen, with an air of apperent
triumph "wiii you contend for power watch
was expressly refused by the Convention 2"
Although 1t 5 not precisely according TO the
arrangement which wo had prescribed for our
Selves II may probably no; be amiss for us 10 a.
anime This argument at once.
J" hat then are the proceedings upon which "a
is predicated!
On the Nth Of September, 1877, the Sih sec.
ton OF the first article Of the Convention, which
| contains the grant Of powers TO Congress, being
under consideration, 1t was moved TO add clause
TO authorize Congress ",o grant letters of incor-
| pora,ing for Canals,'' &c.
! Decided in the negative.
Ieas-Pennsylvania,V Virginia, Georgia--3
Nays-New hampshire, Massachusetts, Con-
necticut, New Jersey, Delaware, MARYLAND, N
Carolina and South Carolina-S. (See Journal Of
! Convention page 376.)
In our humble judgment this argument is by
no means entitled TO the weight which is usually
given to It, So far from being conclusive, it is
hardly persuasive. The proposition was to give a
distinct substantive power-a power per sc, as our
! friend MIR. Tyler would express it-.a power gem
eral in lis character, and unrestricted i'm its app-
caiion-a power extending TO matters having no
relation 10 the affairs of the General Government,
! and which would almost necessarily bring it in
TO collision with the municipal authorities of the
States. II that power mad been granted then, we
might have seen applications to Congress TO in
corporate the most insignificant Canal Compa-
MES, or Turnpike Companies. or even the manu-
iacturing Companies, or The Projectors of IIo-
tells. Throwing out OF view the consolidating
tendencies OF such system is il not obvious
/ that upon grounds of convenience alone, il would
/ have been highly inrXpedient TO clothe the Ma
uonal Legislature with such power. But does
1t follow as necessary, even probable infer
ence, from the refusal to grant such sweeping
substantive power, that there was 10 lie no power
in Congress 10 grant an act Of incorporation for
any purpose incidental to other granted powers
When the general power ''to pass all laws ncces-
/ sary, and proper carry the enumerated powers
into elect, had been granted. not refer
ence TO that clause very Sufficient answer to
those who urged The grant OF the general power
OF Incorporation on the ground that corporation
would be a necessary means to manage the fiscal
affairs of the Government! But is il fair to de-
duce an argument against the existence of a Inn
Hed tnc'dcnf0t power. from the refusal TO grant an
unhMiied substantive power! Can any two things
he more essentially different in their nature and
ample, that In the Virginia Convention. promo
sillon had been made TO authorize the Ley stature
10 grant acts OF incorporation 10 Faro Banks baw-
dy houses, and for any and all purposes whalso-
/ ever, and II had been voted down. Would it have
been lair 10 infer from such d vote an intention on
The part OF The Convention 10 DENY the power TO
Incorporate Banks or Read Companies! We i'm
aSlne such proposition would hardly be main
lained. Now where is the difference in principle
between the two cases! IL may be commended,
that the refusal 10 give such an unlimited power
would leave the matter exactly where it stood be-
tore the proposition made, and that as the
Legislature possessed the limited power before
the proposition was submitted, il would continue
unIinpaired TO that This we believe to be
1.-The true ground; and assuming il TO be such, we
deduce the conclusion that the trainers Of the Con-
sltntlon, meant the power Of incorporation TO eX-
list In Congress 10 the same extent as il had ex-
listed In the old continental Congress when they
incorporated the Bank of North America ANY
other Interpretation would affirm tie doctrine, that
by nogaiiving proposition TO enlarge the powers
OF any department Of The government, yom took
away the powers Ii already possessed. BY the
same train OF reasoning, 1t might he shown that
the Legislature, by refusing to enlarge the iuris-
diciion OF magistrates, intended thereby 10 take
away the jurisdiction they now havel
But let MS look into The journals of the Conven-
ton itself, and ii they will throw any lipht on
this question.
On the llIh SEPT, 1887, the same day on which
me vote on the power To- grant letters Of ncoTpo-
ration was ta%cn vote taken on the propo.
sitlon to insert Ill the Constitutions the following
words, "Fhe liberty Of the press shall be nviola-
ny preserved and 1T passed in the NEGATIVE:
Ayes-New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Mary
land, Virginia, South Carolina-5. Nays--Con-
necticut, New Jersey, Pcnnsy lvania, Delae are
North Carolina, Georoia--6. (See Journal of
/ Convention, page 31T.)
! Will it be contended that the refusal of the
/ Convention to incorporate this proposition into
! The Constitution was equivalent to Il declaration
That the elderly Of the press shall NOT be pre-
served nviolate!' We presume not But if
! the argument III regard to the refusal to give the
power 10 Congress To grant letters Of incorpOra-
ZION be sound this conclusion must inevitably
follow II The inference is fair in tie one case,
1t must be In the other, for the principle is the
same in both
But let us look little farther. On the next
day (l5'h Sept, 1879 proposition was made
III the Convention to add To the 9Th article Of the
/ Constitution provso in these words That no
State, without lis assent, shall be affected in it's
internal police, or deprived Of its equal suffrage
in the Senate
Passed in the negative.
hyes--Conmeccui, Now Jersey, Delaware g.
Nays-New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Penn
/ sy'vanIa, Maryland. Virginia, North Carolina, S.
/ Carolina, Georgia-S.
In what straiis would our urighbor Of lhe En-
qnrer, and his protesting State Rights men be
Placed,by applying their system of reasoning to
this proposition Hero is genuine substantial
guarantee Tor the integrity u State Rights, offer
ed and rcirctcd--and alas rejected in part BY the
vote Of Virginia! What folowsl The Con-
venlon has refused TO guarantee the non-intcrrer-
encc Win 'thc internal police Of the States =
Ergo, according 10 the logic OF the anti-Bank men,
The General Government has tover In iotercerp