It should be carefully noted that Hamilton's opinion was not based on the "necessary and proper" clause. If the constitution had contained no such clause, the constitutionality of the bill, he contended, would have been just as clear and undoubted. The principle that governments, like all other human agents, can only do things by employing appropriate means was too self evident to make it necessary for the constitution to say so, and that was the entire meaning of the "necessary and proper” clause. But since the clause is there, it can only receive its true interpretation in the light of this self evident principle. Hamilton's reasoning convinced Washington and the bill became a law.

Influence of

The opinions of Hamilton and Jefferson were in perfect harmony with their political characters. Jefferson wished to have a weak central government and if the constitution had been interpreted doctrine of im plied powers. in harmony with his "opinion" he would have had it. Hamilton wished to have a strong central government, and to the practical acceptance of his "opinion," it is due that the government of the United States exercises such large powers. If one wishes to realize the great part that has been played in American history by Hamilton's doctrine of implied powers, he has only to bear in mind that our acquisitions of foreign territory, our laws for internal improvement and our tariff legislation receive their only defense from that doctrine.

Hamilton contended that it was necessary to

the very existence of the national government that Jefferson's interpretation should be exploded. How far he was right, we shall see more clearly hereafter. But one thing is already clear: If Jefferson's "opinion" had been made the rule of Congressional action, the American government with which we are acquainted would never have existed.

QUESTIONS.

1. Draw a contrast between Hamilton and Jefferson. 2. Trace the influence of Jefferson's love of liberty upon his political career.

3. Do you see any relation between Jefferson's love of liberty and the embargo legislation of his second presidential term?

4. Why did he use his influence for assumption?

5. State in detail his opinion as to the constitutionality of the national bank.

6. What are the two general clauses of the constitution? 7. State Hamilton's opinion as to the constitutionalty of the national bank.

8. What do you understand to be the doctrine of the implied powers of the constitution?

9. State in as much detail as you can the influence it has exerted upon the course of American history.

CHAPTER IX.

JEFFERSONIAN REPUBLICANS.

PRECEDING chapters have enabled us to see that

with the passage of the law providing for the incorporation of the bank, the Federalists had answered three great questions: (1) Should the country have a real government? (2) Should Hamilton's financial policy be adopted? (3) Should the constitution be so interpreted as to enlarge the powers of the general govern

ment.

Was Madison inconsistent?

We are now in a position to see that there was no necessary inconsistency in being a Federalist, when the Federalists were working for the adoption of the constitution, and in not being a Federalist when they were trying to effect the adoption of Hamilton's financial policy, and advocating his doctrine of implied powers. One of Madison's biographers thinks that Madison was guilty of great inconsistency because he was a Federalist in 1789, and a Republican in 1791. "There had been no change of political principles," says Mr. Gay, "neither in the party he had left or the party he had joined; but each was striving with all its might to adapt the old doctrine to the altered condition of affairs under the new union. The change was wholly in Mr. Madison. That which

had been white to him was now black; that which had been black was as the driven snow."*

This is an unjust and inaccurate statement of the case. The party he left was advocating the adoption of the constitution when he was a member of it. When he began to oppose it, it was advocating such an interpretation of the constitution as would enlarge the powers of the general government to an extent dangerous, in his opinion, to the liberties of the country. A man could surely believe in the adoption of the constitution, and at the same time believe that Hamilton's interpretation of it was incorrect.

Nor is it more true to say that there was no change in the party that Madison joined. The party that Madison "joined" had no existence until it was organized by himself and Jefferson. It was the single aim of the Antifederalists to prevent the adoption of the constitution. But not a line in the private correspondence of the leaders of the Republican party, to say nothing of their speeches, is in evidence to show that they had any aim but to preserve the general government in "all its constitutional vigor" and to "support the state governments in all their rights."

The Federalists called their opponents Antifederalists, and Federalist historians have done the same thing. But we know nothing of Madison that justifies us in believing that he would not have exerted himself as vigorously to

*Life of Madison, American Statesman Series, page 191. Jefferson's first inaugural address.

preserve the constitution in 1792 as he did to have it adopted in 1787. There was indeed a change in him, but it was a change growing out of, and dependent upon, circumstances. In 1787, he had a vivid sense of the dangers of anarchy. It was natural, therefore, that he should concentrate his thoughts on means of preventing it. In 1792, he had a vivid sense of the dangers of an undue centralization of power. It was equally natural that he should concentrate his thoughts on means of preventing it. As his fear of anarchy grew out of his experience of the Confederation, so likewise his fear of undue centralization grew out of his knowledge of Hamilton and his opinion of the tendency of his financial system.

Some Antifed

Republicans.

It is indeed true that those who had been Antifederalists generally became members of the new Republican party. Those who had been eralists became Antifederalists for pecuniary reasons, because they wished to have paper money, or to avoid the payment of debts, instinctively opposed Hamilton's financial policy. The vital nerve of that policy was the principle that the nation must fulfil its contracts in order that justice might be done and its credit preserved. But this class of Antifederalists consisted of men whose sympathy with the debtor classes made them disregard the importance of the public credit.

Those Antifederalists, also, who opposed the constitution because they believed it would prove dangerous to the liberties of the country, naturally joined the