[34] Farrand, Records of the Federal Convention, vol. ii, p. 135.
[35] This is the draft as reconstructed by Professor Farrand (vol. iii, pp. 604, 607), but the document sent by Pinckney in 1819 to John Quincy Adams for publication in the journal, omitted the last clause. This draft, however, was written not very long before 1819, and was not presented to the Convention in 1787. See Records, vol. iii, p. 595 ff; “Sketch of Pinckney’s Plan for a Constitution, 1787,” in American Historical Review, vol. ix, p. 735, and Bancroft, History of the Constitution, vol. i, p. 258.
[36] Farrand, vol. i, p. 243.
[37] Ibid., vol. ii, p. 177
[38] Ibid., p. 303. New Hampshire, Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and North Carolina were opposed. Rhode Island and New York did not vote. The other states were in favor.
[39] Ibid., p. 324.
[40] Constitution, Art. I, Sec. 8, Clause 7; Farrand, vol. ii, p. 590.
[41] Farrand, vol. ii, p. 615.
[42] Farrand, vol. ii, p. 615.
[43] The vote on the motion was 8 to 3 (New Hampshire, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, North Carolina, and South Carolina opposed; Pennsylvania, Virginia, Georgia in favor). This incident in the Federal Convention was to figure in the congressional debates over the incorporation of banks and the construction of postroads. Opinions have differed as to whether the action of the Convention may be said to show that the Constitution did not contemplate the exercise by Congress of a power to incorporate. Madison’s record says: “Mr. King thought the power unnecessary.... Mr. Wilson mentioned the importance of facilitating by canals the communication with the Western Settlements. As to Banks, he did not think with Mr. King that the power in that point of view would excite the prejudices and parties apprehended. As to mercantile monopolies, they are already included in the power to regulate trade.” Farrand, vol. iii, p. 615. Madison’s later opinion (1824) was that a general power to incorporate had been negatived. Ibid., p. 463.