I will now, Mr. President, proceed to examine those instances which the gentleman has presented of the supposed aberrations of the Congress of the United States from the enumerated powers, and I think it will not be difficult to show that there is not a single instance quoted, but which is deducible from a fair and correct interpretation of the express words of the constitution, giving them their common and appropriate meaning.
The first instance presented to our consideration by the honorable gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Crawford) of the exercise of a power by Congress not enumerated in the constitution, was the erection of light-houses. The gentleman from Massachusetts, (Mr. Lloyd,) to whose dispassionate observations I listened with great pleasure, superadded the instance of the erection of custom-houses. On these, both of the gentlemen seemed to place great reliance, as cases in point with the one under consideration. Both these powers I conceive are given to Congress by the express words of the constitution; but if I should be mistaken in this idea, they are certainly comprehended as incidental and subservient to, or in other words, "necessary and proper" for carrying into effect some of the enumerated powers.
The express words of the constitution give to Congress the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises," &c.; "to regulate commerce with foreign nations among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;" "to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatever, &c., over all places purchased by consent of the Legislature of the State in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings." From these clauses of the constitution, taken in connection with each other, I think Congress possesses the power to erect light-houses and custom-houses by the express words of the constitution; for both of these descriptions of houses must necessarily be included within the term "needful buildings," or the only construction which is at all applicable to these cases is, that needful buildings is the general term, and light-houses and custom-houses are particular instances or examples under the general term; or, if I may be so allowed to express my ideas, needful buildings may be considered as the genus, of which light-houses and custom-houses are particular species. The reason with the framers of the constitution for using this general term is obvious. It was, because it was impossible for them to foresee all the particular species of needful buildings which might become necessary to the salutary operations of this Government in the course of its complicated and due administration; they therefore wisely left that subject to the discussion of Congress, restrained and limited, nevertheless, by the requisition of the consent of the Legislatures of the States respectively, in every case proposed for the exercise of this discretion. That this is a plain and correct interpretation of the constitution is evinced by the concurrent opinions of every Legislature of every State, which has heretofore ceded lands for any of these objects; and it is to be remarked, that Congress has never attempted to erect any of these buildings without the constitutional requisition of the consent of the States respectively. But if this term "needful buildings" had not been expressed in the constitution, I should not hesitate to admit with these gentlemen that the erection of light-houses and custom-houses might properly be deduced from the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, &c., which are particular grants of power enumerated in the constitution. Because custom-houses are appropriately necessary to the collection of duties, and have always been deemed indispensable for that object, as are light-houses to the due regulation of commerce.
These two powers are indispensably connected with, and subservient to, particular enumerated powers, and are therefore among the means which are necessary and proper for their effectuation; and as such are given to Congress by the express words of the constitution, which are: Congress shall have power "to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof." From this course of interpretation, the gentlemen, reasoning from a supposed analogy, have asked, if Congress can derive the right to erect light-houses and custom-houses from their necessary agency in effectuating the particular powers to which they are said to be appendant or appurtenant, why may it not in the same way derive the right of granting charters of incorporation for the same objects? Or, in other words, if Congress can constitutionally erect custom-houses for the purpose, or as the necessary means of collecting duties; why may it not establish a bank for the same object, &c.? The question is admitted to be a fair one; and if a clear distinction cannot be made in the two cases, it will be admitted either that Congress may constitutionally establish a bank, or that it has heretofore transcended its powers in erecting custom-houses, &c. A clear and most obvious distinction appears to me to exist in the cases suggested by the gentlemen to be analogous, arising from the striking difference in the nature and essential character of these powers. A custom-house is in its nature incidental and subservient to the collection of duties. It is one of the common, necessary, and proper means to effect that end. It is believed that in no commercial country in the world are duties collected without them. Besides, the erection of custom-houses does not involve in it the exercise of any other higher or consequential powers. The same remarks will apply to light-houses, as among the common, necessary, and proper means for the regulation of commerce, &c.
Is the incorporation of a bank of this character? It is not among the common, necessary, and proper means of effecting either of the foregoing enumerated powers, nor of any other enumerated in the constitution; still less is it incidental or subservient to any of the enumerated powers. It wants that connection, affiliation, and subserviency, to some enumerated power, which are clearly pointed out in relation to the two powers, to which it has been said to be analogous. Besides, does granting a charter of incorporation to a bank involve no other higher or consequential power than merely erecting a needful building for collecting duties, &c.? It certainly does. It involves the power to grant charters of incorporation generally; and in this respect, principally, its character is essentially different from both of the powers cited by the gentleman. The power to grant charters of incorporation is not an incidental, subordinate, subservient power; it is a distinct, original, substantive power. It is also susceptible of the clearest definition; and not being among the enumerated powers, it seems to me that Congress can have no fair claim to its exercise in any case. If Congress had been expressly authorized to grant charters of incorporation generally, then granting a charter of incorporation to a bank would have been an instance, or among the means, of carrying into effect that enumerated power, and would have been as much connected and affiliated with it as is the erection of custom-houses with the collection of duties; but the power to grant charters of incorporation generally not being expressly given in the constitution, no particular instance involving the exercise of that power can be inferred by a fair and candid interpretation of the instrument. I do not mean to exaggerate the consequences which might result from an assumption of the power to grant charters of incorporation, &c. It is sufficient for me to say that it is a power of primary importance; that it involves as many incidental powers in its exercise as any one of the enumerated powers; that it is equal, if not paramount, to any; and, therefore, in my judgment, cannot be assumed by fair construction as incidental and subservient to any; and, of course, not as among the necessary and proper means for carrying any into effect. In fact, in its nature it does not in the smallest degree partake of the derivative, incidental character. It is original, substantive, distinct in itself, and susceptible of the plainest definition. Hence, whilst I am willing to admit that a power, which is in its nature incidental and subservient to any enumerated power, and also among the necessary and proper means for carrying it into effect, may be exercised by Congress without the express words of the constitution, I should be very unwilling to admit that Congress should also exercise a power neither incidental nor subservient to any of the enumerated powers, nor among the necessary and proper means for carrying any into effect; still less should I be inclined to this admission, when the power thus proposed to be derived, incidentally or constructively, involves in it the exercise of almost unlimited powers. To illustrate my idea still further in this respect, I would observe, that the power to regulate descents, and to regulate the distribution of intestates, I conceive to be original, distinct, substantive powers; and, being among the powers which could in all respects be limited by the geographical boundaries of the individual States, and were therefore among the powers reserved to the management of the States, might as easily be assumed by Congress as incidental to some one of the enumerated powers, as the assumption of the power to grant charters of incorporation, which I conceive was, for the same reason, left to the management of the States. I believe no gentleman will contend that Congress can, under any candid construction, go so far in relation to those powers; nor do I see how it can in relation to the power of granting charters of incorporation.
Friday, February 15.
Bank of the United States.
The Senate resumed, as in Committee of the Whole, the bill to amend and continue in force an act, entitled "An act to incorporate the subscribers to the Bank of the United States," passed on the 25th day of February, 1791.
Mr. Clay.—Mr. President: When the subject involved in the motion now under consideration was depending before the other branch of the Legislature, a disposition to acquiesce in their decision was evinced. For although the committee who reported this bill had been raised many weeks prior to the determination of that House on the proposition to recharter the bank, except the occasional reference to it of memorials and petitions, we scarcely ever heard of it. The rejection, it is true, of a measure brought before either branch of Congress, does not absolutely preclude the other from taking up the same proposition; but the economy of our time, and a just deference for the opinion of others, would seem to recommend a delicate and cautious exercise of this power. As this subject, at the memorable period when the charter was granted, called forth the best talents of the nation—as it has, on various occasions, undergone the most thorough investigation, and as we can hardly expect that it is susceptible of receiving any further elucidation, it was to have been hoped that we should have been spared a useless debate. This was the more desirable because there are, I conceive, much superior claims upon us for every hour of the small portion of the session yet remaining to us. Under the operation of these motives, I had resolved to give a silent vote, until I felt myself bound, by the defying manner of the arguments advanced in support of the renewal, to obey the paramount duties I owe my country and its constitution; to make one effort, however feeble, to avert the passage of what appears to me a most unjustifiable law. After my honorable friend from Virginia (Mr. Giles) had instructed and amused us with the very able and ingenious argument which he delivered on yesterday, I should have still forborne to trespass on the Senate, but for the extraordinary character of his speech. He discussed both sides of the question, with great ability and eloquence, and certainly demonstrated to the satisfaction of all who heard him, both that it was constitutional and unconstitutional, highly proper and improper to prolong the charter of the bank. The honorable gentleman appeared to me in the predicament in which the celebrated orator of Virginia, Patrick Henry, is said to have been once placed. Engaged in a most extensive and lucrative practice of the law, he mistook in one instance the side of the cause on which he was retained, and addressed the court and jury in a very splendid and convincing speech in behalf of his antagonist. His distracted client came up to him whilst he was progressing, and interrupting him, bitterly exclaimed, "you have undone me! you have ruined me!"—"Never mind, give yourself no concern," said the adroit advocate; and turning to the court and jury, continued his argument by observing, "May it please your honors, and you, gentlemen of the jury, I have been stating to you what I presume my adversary may urge on his side. I will now show you how fallacious his reasoning and groundless his pretensions are." The skilful orator proceeded, satisfactorily refuted every argument he had advanced, and gained his cause! A success with which I trust the exertion of my honorable friend will on this occasion be crowned.
It has been said by the honorable gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Crawford) that this has been made a party question, although the law incorporating the bank was passed prior to the formation of parties, and when Congress was not biased by party prejudices. [Mr. Crawford explained. He did not mean that it had been made a party question in the Senate. His allusion was elsewhere.] I do not think it altogether fair to refer to the discussions in the House of Representatives, as gentlemen belonging to that body have no opportunity of defending themselves here. It is true that this law was not the effect, but it is no less true that it was one of the causes of the political divisions of this country. And if, during the agitation of the present question, the renewal has, on one side, been opposed on party principles, let me ask if, on the other, it has not been advocated on similar principles? Where is the Macedonian phalanx, the opposition in Congress? I believe, sir, I shall not incur the charge of presumptuous prophecy, when I predict that we shall not pick up from its ranks one single straggler! And if, on this occasion, my worthy friend from Georgia has gone over into the camp of the enemy, is it kind in him to look back upon his former friends, and rebuke them for the fidelity with which they adhere to their old principles?