in a special report,
containing a copious and perspicuous argument on the policy of the
measure. A bill conforming to the plan he suggested was sent down from
the senate, and was permitted to proceed, unmolested, in the house of
representatives, to the third reading. On the final question, a great,
and, it would seem, an unexpected opposition was made to its passage.
Mr. Madison, Mr. Giles, Mr. Jackson, and Mr. Stone spoke against it.
The general utility of banking systems was not admitted, and the
particular bill before the house was censured on its merits; but the
great strength of the argument was directed against the constitutional
authority of congress to pass an act for incorporating a national
bank.

The government of the United States, it was said, was limited; and the
powers which it might legitimately exercise were enumerated in the
constitution itself. In this enumeration, the power now contended for
was not to be found. Not being expressly given, it must be implied
from those which were given, or it could not be vested in the
government. The clauses under which it could be claimed were then
reviewed and critically examined; and it was contended that, on fair
construction, no one of these could be understood to imply so
important a power as that of creating a corporation.

The clause which enables congress to pass all laws necessary and
proper to execute the specified powers, must, according to the natural
and obvious force of the terms and the context, be limited to means
_necessary_ to the _end_ and _incident_ to the _nature_ of the
specified powers. The clause, it was said, was in fact merely
declaratory of what would have resulted by unavoidable implication, as
the appropriate, and as it were technical means of executing those
powers. Some gentlemen observed, that "the true exposition of a
necessary mean to produce a given end was that mean without which the
end could not be produced."

The bill was supported by Mr. Ames, Mr. Sedgwick, Mr. Smith, of South
Carolina, Mr. Lawrence, Mr. Boudinot, Mr. Gerry, and Mr. Vining.

The utility of banking institutions was said to be demonstrated by
their effects. In all commercial countries they had been resorted to
as an instrument of great efficacy in mercantile transactions; and
even in the United States, their public and private advantages had
been felt and acknowledged.

Respecting the policy of the measure, no well founded doubt could be
entertained; but