The Cadiz Democratic sentinel. [volume] (Cadiz, Ohio) 1854-1864, 1855-05-02

SdhS u:TeCttOnJ lueTe can Ue no uOuOt.-
All its operate MS within, would be in aid oi
the hostile fleets and armies without; con
trolling our currency; receiving our public
moneys, and holding thousands of our cit.
liens in dependence, il would be more for
midable and dangerous than the naval and
military pewer ofthe enemv.
If we must have bank with private
stockholders. every consideration of sound
policy and every impulse of American feel
ing, admonishes that it should be purely
American. Its Stockholders should be
composed exclusively Of our own citizens
who at least ought to be, friendly to our
government, and willing to support il in
times Of difficulty and danger. So abun-
dant is domestic capitol, that competition
IN subscribing for the stock oflocal Banks.
has recently led almost to riots. To a
Bank. exclusively of American Stcckhol-
ders, possessing the powers and privi eges
granted by this act, subscriptions for two
hundred millions of dollars, could be readi-
| ly obtained. Iustead ofsending abroad the
slock OF the Bank, in which the government
must deposit its funds, and on which it
must rely to sustain its credit in times Of
emergency, it would seem to be exPed!ent
to prohibit its sale to aliens under penalty
of absolute forfeiture.
1t is maintained by the advocates of the
Bank that its constitutionality in all its fea-
lures ought to be considered as settled by
precedent and by the decision of the Su-
preme Court 10 this conclusion, | cannot
assent, mere precedent is dangerous
source Of authority, and should be regarded
as deciding questions of constitutional pow
es, except where the aequlescence Of the
people and the States can be considered as
we'll settled. So far from this being the
case on this subject, an argument against
the Bank might be based on precedent 49,
One Congress in 1891 decided in favor ol
Bank; another in 1911 decided against
il. One Congress in 1915 decided against
the Bank. another in 1919 decided in its
favor-Prior to the present Congress.
therefore, the precedeHts drawn from that
source were equal. If we resort to the
States the expressions of Legislative, judi,
cial and Executive opinions against the
Bank, have been probably to those in its
favor; as four to cue. There is nothing in
precedent therefore, which OF its authority
were admitted, ought to weigh in favor tI
the act before me.
If the opinion of the Supreme Court GOV.
e.cd the whole ground of this act it ought
not to control the co ordinate authorities
of this government. The Congress, the
Executive and the Court, must each for it.
self be guided by its own opinion Of the
Constitution. Each public officer who takes
an oath TO support the Constitution, sweals
that he Il support it as he understands
it, and not as it IS understood by others.
1t is as much the duty of the House Of Rep
resentative, of the Senate and of the PreSi-
dent to decide upon the constitutionaity
of any bill or resolution which may be pre-
scnted to them for passage or approval,
as it is of the Supreme judges when it may
be brought before them for judicial decision
The opinion of the Judges has no more au-
thority over Congress than the opinion of
Congress has over the Judges, and on that
point the president is independent of both.
The authority Of the Supreme Court must
not, therefore, be permitted to conr1l the
Congress or the Executive, when acting in
their legislative capacities, but to have only
such influence as the force of their reason
ing may deserve.
But in the case relied upon the Supreme
Court have not decid, that all the ftatus es
of this corporation are compatible with the
Constitution. It's true that the court have
said that the law cooperating the Bank is a
constitutional exercise of power by Congress
But taking into view the whole opinion Of the
court, and the reasoning by which they have
came to that conclusion. l understand them
to have decided that, inasmuch as a Bank is
an appropriate means for carrying into effect
the enumers ting powers of the general Go
yeinment, therefore, the law incorporating
it is in accordance with that provision of the
Constitution which declares that Congress
shall have power to make all laws which
shall be necessary and proper for carrying
those powers inc execution" Having sat
isfed themselves, that the word, necessary
in the Constitution, means "needful," are.
quisite,' Essential, conductive to, and that
"a Bank" is convenient, a useful and es-
sential int. ument in the prosecution line of
the Governments fiscal operations" they
conclude, that to "use one must be within
the deiscretion Of Congress-" and that "the
act to incorporate the Bank of the. United
States is law made in pursuance of the
Constitution; "but" say they "where the
law is not prohibited an is really calculated
to effect any Of the objects entrusted to the
Government, to undertake here to enquire
into the degree Of lis necessity, would be to
pass the line which crcumscribes the Judi
cial Department and TO tread on Legisla.
tive ground"
The principle here affirmed is that "the
degree of its necessity" involving all the
details of Banking institution, is a ques
ton exclusively for legislative consideration
A Bank is constitutional; but ii is the pro.
vince Of the Legislature to determine wheth
er this or that particular power. pri, ,ilege o
exemplifcatlon, is ne ,esslry and proper" tc
enable the Bank to discharge its duties tc
the Government, and from their decision
there is no appeal to the courts Of justice
Under the decision of The Supreme Cour
therefore, it is the exclusive province o
) Congress and the President to decide, whett
er the particular features of this act are ne
cessary and proper" in order to enable the
bank to perform conveniently and efficiently
: the public duties assigned to il as fiscal ,
agent, and therefore constitutional, or un
necessary and improper, and therefore un
constitutional.
: Without commenting Cd the general prin
ciple affirmed by the Supreme Court le