called on Jefferson and Hamilton for their written opinions. Jefferson's opinion began as follows: "I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground, that all powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states or to the people. To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn, around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition."

He then attempted to show that the power to incorporate a bank was not one of the powers conferred upon Congress by the Constitution, because (1) it was not one of the specially enumerated powers. The Constitution gives Congress the power to impose taxes, borrow money, regulate commerce, declare war, etc., but does not say that it can incorporate a bank. Hence, (2) if the power was conferred at all, it must be capable of being deduced by a fair method of interpretation from one or the other of the two general clauses in the section enumerating the powers of Congress. But it cannot be inferred from the first, which authorizes Congress "to levy taxes to provide for the general welfare of the United States," because "the levying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They are not to levy taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do

anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to levy taxes for that purpose." Nor can it be inferred from the second general clause, which provides that Congress shall have power to "make all laws which shall be necessary and proper" for carrying into effect the enumerated powers, because they can all be carried into execution without a bank. But if they can, a bank is not necessary, and consequently not authorized by this clause. In brief, Jefferson interpreted this clause as if it had been written as follows: And Congress shall have power to pass all laws which shall be absolutely and indispensably necessary for carrying into effect the foregoing powers.

Hamilton's argument was based on the principle that power to do a thing implies power to use appropriate To say that Congess had power to

Hamilton's opinion.

means.

achieve certain ends and yet was prohibited from using the fittest means unless they

were absolutely necessary, or had been specifically granted, he regarded as an absurdity. From his point of view, to prove the constitutionality of the bill providing for a bank, no more was necessary than to show that a bank would be useful in borrowing money or collecting taxes. If it was a convenient means of executing any of the powers conferred upon Congress, and had not been prohibited by the Constitution, it was constitutional.

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.

The opinions of Hamilton and Jefferson were in perfect harmony with their political characters. Jefferson wished to have a weak central government,

Influence;

implied power

and if the Constitution had been interpreted doctrine of 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