Carroll free press. [volume] (Carrollton [Ohio]) 1834-1861, 1848-12-15

crptiOn by many OF our au'es' a..
of whom doubted us eons1lluh"nal"y anu US
expediency, while others sele'su " ~as, 70 a"
its branches. fragrant ano oa"eeiOuS 'n'fac'
uon OF the constitution
lsvied. no, 10 raise the revenue heeoeu-no' ior
Io',o1' l';.o ,,srely-inirrnsl improvements. ard
~. ds,rbulion OF the proceeds Of the sales OF
~ oublic lands, are measures without the wants
or,bs constitution, would upon the ma'ures'
consideration, seem TO be clear.
Ii is remarkable that no one OF these mea-
sures, involving such momenius consequences,
is authorised by any express grant OF power IN
the constitution. No one oi Is incident to, as
being necessary and proper for The execution OF
the specific powers granted by the constitution.
The authority under which II hes been attempt
ed 10 Justify each Of them is derived from inter.
ences and constructions ofths constitution which
i,s Letter and its whole object and design do not
warrant. Is il to be conceived that such inn
mense powers would have been leitby the Ira,
mers Of the constitution 10 mere lnierences ano
doubtful consrructonsl Had il been intended
20 confer them on the federal government, It IS
bu, reasonable TO conclude that wouIo nave
been done by plain and unequlvocal grants
This was not done, but the whole structure oil
which the "American System" consisted, was
reared on no other or better foundation than
forced interpretations and nierences Of power,
which its authors assumed might be deducted
by construction from the constitution.
But il has been very evident that the Nation
al Bank, which constituted so essential branch
ofthis combined system Of measures, was not a
new measure, and that its cons'tuuonalily had
been previously sanctioned, because bank had
been chart red in 1891, and had the official sig
nature of President Washington. few facts
will show the Just weight to which this prece-
dent should be entitled, as bearing upon the
question ofconstuIionalny.
Great division Of opinion on the subject exist
ed in Congress. Ii is we'll known that Presl-
den, Washington entertained serious doubts both
as TO the constilulionality and expediency OF the
measure; and while the bill was before him for
his official approval or disapproval, so great
were these doubts, that he required "the opinion
in writing" Of the m mberS Of his cabinet 10
aid hun in arriving at a decision. His cabinet
gave their opinion, and were divided upon The
subect-General Hamilton being in favor, and
Mr.. Jefferson and Mr.. Randolph being opposed
10 The constilutionallty and expediency. 1t is
well known. also, that President Washington
retained the bill from Monday the l4Ih, when it
was presented to him, until Friday, the 25rh of
February-being the last moment permitted him
by the constitution TO deliver it, when he finally
yielded 10 give his reluctant assent, and gave II
his signature. Ii is certain that as late as The
esd Of tbruary-being the 9Th day after the
bill was presented 10 him, he had arrived at no
satisfactory conclusion. for on that day he ad-
dressed a note to Gen. Hamilton, in which he
says that this bill was "Presented TO me by the
Joint committee of Congress, al IL O'Clock on
Monday, the I4lh instant" And he requested
his "opinon,to to what precise period by legal in
depreciation of the constitution can the President
retain il in his possession, before it becomes a
law by the lapse Of the ten days"
lf the proper construction was that the day on
which the bill was presented to the President,
and the day on which his action was had upon
it, were both to be counted inclusive, then The
time allowed him, within which il would be COM
petent for him 10 return il to the House in which
il Originaeds with his objections, wouldcxpirS on
Thursday the 24lh Of February.
General Hamilton on the same day returned
an answer in which he states; Il give it as my
opinion that you have ten days exclusive of that
on VIII ch the bill was delivered to you and Sun
days. Hence in the present case, if IT is re-
turned on Friday, il will be in time. By this
construction which the President adopted, he
gained another day for deliberaton, and it was
not unlil the 25lh of February that he signed
the bill thus offering conclusive proof that he
had at last obtained his own consent 10 sign it
not without great and almost lnsuperable difficult
~.
Additional light has recently been shed upon
the serious doubts which he had on The subject, a.
mounting al one time TO the conviction that it
was his duty to withhold his approval from the
bill.
This is found among the manuscript papers
of Mr.. Madison, authorized TO be purchased for
The use Of the government, by act Of the last
session, and now, for the first time, accessible TO
the public. From these papels it appears that
President Washington, while he yet held the
bank bill in his hands, actually requested Mr..
Madison al that time member of the House of
Representatives, TO prepare the draft of veto
message for him. Mr.. Madison, at his request,
did prepare the draft Of such message, and sent
it 10 him on the 2lst Of Feb. 1891. A copy Of
this original draft, in Mr.. Madison's own hand
writing, was carefully preserved by him, and is
among the papers lately purchased BY Congress-
1t is preceded by note written on the same
sheet, and is also in Mr.. Madison's own hand
writing, and is as follows:
... February 81, 1871.
"Copy OF paper made out and sent 10 the
president, at his request, 10 be ready in case his
judgment should finally decide against the bill
for Incorporating national bank, the bill being
then before him."
Among the objections assigned in this paper
TO The bill, and which we're submitted for the con.
sideration of the president, are the following:
81 object 10 the bill because i, is an essential
principle of this government, that power not DEL
egated by the Constitution cannot be rightfuy
exercised; because the power proposed by the
bill 10 be exercised is not expressly delegated,
and because cannot satisfy myself that it re-
suits from any expressed power by fair and safe