RATIFIED WITH AMENDMENTS.

AMENDMENTS ADOPTED.

called the relief system; and about twenty of them had been insurgents in arms against their state government. A majority at their first meeting were evidently opposed to the constitution; and its final adoption was owing to the influence and skill of one man. Governor Hancock had been chosen a delegate from Boston, and president of the convention, but had been prevented by ill health from attending. Near its close, the friends of the instrument brought him out; and he rose in his place and proposed the adoption of the constitution, with a long list of amendments, calculated to allay the fears of its opponents, but not varying its operation. He was unquestionably the most popular man in the state, and best understood political management. The measure had the intended effect. The constitution was adopted by a majority of nineteen votes. This scheme of governor Hancock was resorted to by the friends of the constitution in other states where its success was doubtful, and was the means of its final adoption. On the 21st of June, 1788, the instrument took effect by the adoption of New Hampshire, the ninth state; and operations commenced under it, on the 4th of March, 1789.

RATIFIED WITH AMENDMENTS. The ratifications of several of the states were accompanied with propositions for amendments, amounting in the whole to about one hundred. The first Congress selected several of those which went to deny to the general government the right of abusing its own powers, and recommended them to the states for adoption. Ten of them passed through the forms required by the constitution, and became component parts of that instrument.

AMENDMENTS ADOPTED. Soon after the organization of the judiciary, a suit was brought in the circuit court by a citizen of South Carolina against the state of Georgia, on a state note. This impugned a principle deemed an essential attribute of sovereignty, to wit, that the supreme power was not liable to be sued; grounded upon the idea, that it would be a kind of suicidal operation for the sovereign power to render judgment against itself in its own courts, and also upon the mistaken notion that it will always do right. The process was served upon the governor, and the suit sustained in the supreme court. The state did not appear, but passed an act declaring it felony for any person to attempt to carry the judgment into execution within its jurisdiction. The decision excited alarm as being in derogation of the reserved powers of the states, and as tending to reduce them to the condition of private corporations. An amendment was proposed at the session of Congress next following the final termination of the suit, and carried through the requisite forms. It is the eleventh article of the amendments, and provides, "that the judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of

another state, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign state." This is the only amendment which in any respect has varied the powers of the constitution.

In consequence of the equi-vote for Jefferson and Burr in the presidential election of 1800, the constitution was so amended as to require the electors of president and vice president, to designate in their ballots the persons for whom they voted for each office; with these unimportant amendments, the constitution remains as it came from the hands of the convention.

Although the constitution was formed by intelligent and patriotic men, and is viewed as highly creditable to themselves, as the result of a spirit of mutual concession; yet it ought not, perhaps, to be considered strange that conflicting opinions eoncerning the extent of the powers delegated by it to the general government, have been displayed and will continue to exist; formed, as this country is, of different interests, and moved by the force of circumstances as the citizens of various portions of it are, to look at things in dissimilar lights; the different views of constitutional power seem to be the result of natural causes, and if the people continue to practice the forbearing spirit which actuated them when forming the present bond of union, the patriot may well hope that it will long continue to exist, and that the glory and prosperity of this republic may greatly advance the cause of liberty throughout the world.

Soon after the adoption of the constitution, the question was raised whether Congress had power to charter a bank.

CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS. BANK. The Secretary of the Treasury, at the second session of the first Congress recommended the establishment of a Bank of the United States. The benefits immediately expecting to result to the government, were, to furnish a safe place of deposit for the public moneys, and a cheap and safe transmission from the place of collection to that of disbursement. It was said that this must be done through the medium of agents, and that banks with large capitals, and extensive business, could be much more safely trusted; and could do the business with more ease and on better terms than individuals; and if proper and necessary to resort to banks for this purpose, it was altogether preferable to have one deriving its authority from, and responsible to, the government; one into the arcana of whose transactions the Secretary could always look, and whose operations, so far as the public safety required, the government could control. At this period the banking incorporations chartered by the states, were few in number, and their credit not fully established. The principal benefit expected to result to the people at large, was, that it would furnish a circulating medium of established credit, and of a uniform value throughout the United States; and incidentally, that it would promote commerce, and aid the collection of the

SECOND BANK.

revenue, by furnishing the importing merchants and others the means of obtaining discounts and extending their credit. The Secretary discussed at large, and with much ingenuity, the question, both as to its constitutionality, and its utility. At this period the financial plans of this officer were uniformly supported by the federalists, and as uniformly opposed by the anti-federalists or republicans. In the view of the latter, the power was not given in express terms, or by necessary implication, inasmuch as such an institution was not necessary for the operations of gov ernment; and that the construction contended for, would render the General Government one of unlimited powers, there being none but what at some period it might be convenient to exercise. The opponents of the measure laid much stress upon the fact, that a proposition was made in the convention to invest Congress with the power of chartering corporations, and was negatived. On recurring to their journals it was found, that a proposition was made to give Congress this general power, and negatived on the ground that it more properly belonged to the state authorities. This, however, as the friends of the bill supposed, did not debar Congress from creating a corporation necessary or proper for the purposes of the government. A bill passed both houses, chartering a bank for twenty years, with a capital of $10,000,000, two of which was subscribed by the government. On the constitutional question, the president required the opinions of the heads of departments, and the attorney general. They were equally divided; the secretary of state and the attorney general, (Jefferson and Randolph) being opposed; and the secretaries of the treasury and war, (Hamilton and Knox) in favor of the bank. General Washington being of the latter opinion, signed the bill, and the bank went into immediate operation. The question as to its constitutionality, so far as it was involved in suits against its debtors, was uniformly decided in favor of the bank. The charter expired by its own limitation, in 1811. The administration had now fallen into the hands of those who were originally opposed to the bank, and an application for the renewal of its charter was denied.

SECOND BANK. During the period of the war of 1912, and until 1816, the United States were without a bank. Money was borrowed with difficulty and at a great sacrifice. Government securities bearing six per cent. interest, were sold at a discount of twenty per cent. Numerous state banks were created to supply the deficiency. Some of them with fictitious capitals, consisting of the private notes of the stockholders; and the country was innundated with a flood of paper issued by the state banks, who refused to redeem their bills with specie; some of it was entirely worthless, and some received only at a great discount. The revenue was collected in a depreciated paper, and of different value at different ports; thereby, in effect, vacating that

SECOND BANK.

provision in the constitution, which directs that the duties should be the same in all places. The government also suffered an entire loss of a million and a half of dollars, in the bills of bankrupt banks. A number of the original opponents of a national bank became its advocates, and Mr. Madison having yielded his constitutional scruples to the concurrent opinion of every branch of the government, and to the wants of the community, a new bank was chartered in 1816, with a capital of $35,000,000; of which the government took $7,000,000, and for which the stockholders paid a bonus of $2.000,000, and in addition to the public duties performed by the former bank, this was to pay the holders of public stock, and the pensioners their demands, free of expense.

This institution, agreeable to the provision of its charter, established branches in most of the states. The state authorities claimed the right of taxing the branches within their respective limits, at pleasure. The state of Ohio laid a tax of sixty thousand dollars on each of the two branches established in that state, for the avowed purpose of driving them from its limits. About the same time, the state of Maryland laid a tax on the branch established in that state. These proceedings gave rise to another constitutional question, in addition to the original one; to wit, whether such a tax was an infringement of its charter. The supreme court decided that a power in the states to tax the branches at pleasure, and thereby in effect to prevent their establishment, was inconsistent with the provisions of the bank charter. The reasoning by which the court arrived at the latter conclusion, though somewhat diffuse, was contained in a single proposition; that a power to create and a power to destroy the same thing, cannot exist together in different bodies; therefore, Congress having the power to create a bank, being admitted, the power in the states virtually to destroy it by taxation, does not exist.

In December, 1829, the President, in his opening message, introduced the subject to congress in the following terms: "The charter of the bank of the United States expires in 1836, and its stockholders will most probably apply for a renewal of their privileges. In order to avoid the evils resulting from precipitancy in a measure involving such important principles, and Buch deep pecuniary interests, I feel that I cannot in justice to the parties interested, too soon present it to the deliberate consideration of the legislature and the people. Both the constitutionality and the expediency of the law creating this bank are well questioned by a large portion of our fellow citizens; and it must be admitted by all, that it has failed in the great end of establishing a uniform and sound currency.

"Under these circumstances, if such an institution is deemed essential to the fiscal operations of the government, I submit to the wisdom of the legislature, whether a national one, founded

AMERICAN SYSTEM.

upon the credit of the government, and its revenues, might not be devised, which would avoid all constitutional difficulties, and at the same time secure all the advantages to the government and country, that were expected to result from this bank."

The bank presented a memorial for the renewal of its charter, at the first session of the 22d Congress, in January, 1832, and a bill passed both houses after a full examination of its condition and conduct, to that effect. It was negatived by the president, and failed of becoming a law, for the want of a constitutional majority of two thirds. There still exists a great diversity of opinion, both as regards the constitutionality and expediency of a national bank, and the subject furnishes a fruitful theme for controversy.

Another point in which there have been radical differences of opinion, and on which important questions relating to the powers conferred by the constitution have arisen, is the American System, as it has been called,-that of protecting the industry of the country against foreign competition. The different interests of the north and the south, have given to this question a sectional character. The states of the north-east, with a comparatively sterile soil, producing no staple, are a commercial and manufacturing people.

AMERICAN SYSTEM. Arguments were reiterated and enforced on both sides, with great ability, but without effect. At length, the near approach of the extinguishment of the public debt, gave a new turn to the argument. The United States were about to present the novel spectacle of a great nation free from debt, and possessing a fund of the value of a hundred millions of dollars in public lands unappropriated, and at the disposal of government. The south contended, that the protecting duties, not being wanted for the purposes of revenue, could no longer be borne, or constitutionally continued; that the duties should be reduced to the wants of government, and be laid ad valorem; at least that there should be no discrimination in favor of those articles which were or might be produced in the United States. The constitutional question was again argued with great ability. The advocates of protection claimed, that the encouragement of domestic industry was a distinct and independent subject, was one of the purposes for which the constitution was formed, and one which had been constantly kept in view in every period of its administration. They admitted that the revenue ought to be reduced to the actual wants of the government, but claimed that the duties should be taken off of those articles which did not interfere with the productions of the country, and that a tariff should be so modified as to leave the protecting system unimpaired. The controversy was fast ripening into an armed opposition to the law, when it was suddenly quieted by the bill of compromise of 1833. The expira