furnishing good and valid ground of alarm, and legitimately calculated to awaken patriotic opposition. But his greatest fundamental objection was one which he derived from the constitution itself, and one which he urged with a vehemence sure to prevail. He maintained that no specific provision was found in that instrument, authorizing or permitting the charter of the bank, neither could it be so construed as to imply the power to that effect. In opposing, therefore, the renewal of its charter, his remarks were principally confined to the objectionable feature of its unconstitutionality; and they furnish one of the strongest arguments against a national bank ever made, and one that is often referred to as authority of a high order. It may be well to insert a portion of his speech, illustrative of their pertinence and beauty. ‘This vagrant power to erect a bank, after having wandered throughout the whole constitution in quest of some congenial spot to fasten upon, has been at length located, by the gentleman from Georgia, on that provision which authorized congress to lay and collect taxes. In 1791 the power is referred to one part of the instrument, and in 1811 to another. Sometimes it is alleged to be deducible from the power to regulate commerce. Hard pressed here, it disappears, and shows itself under the grant to coin money. ‘What is the nature of the government? It is emphatically federal, vested with an aggregate of specific powers for general purposes, conceded by existing sovereignties, who have themselves retained what is not so conceded. It is said that there are cases in which it must act on implied powers. This is not controverted, but the implication must be necessary, and obviously flow from the enumerated power with which it is allied. The power to charter companies is not specified in the grant, and I contend is of a nature not transferable by mere implication. It is one of the most exalted acts of sovereignty. In the exercise of this gigantic power we have seen an East India Company erected, which has carried dismay, desolation and death, throughout one of the largest portions of the habitable world――a company which is in itself a sovereignty, which has subverted empires, and set up new dynasties, and has not only made war, but war against its legitimate sovereign. Under the influence of this power we have seen arise a South Sea Company, and a Mississippi Company, that distracted and convulsed all Europe, and menaced a total overthrow of all credit and confidence, and universal bankruptcy. Is it to be imagined that a power so vast would have been left by the constitution to doubtful inference? It has been alleged that there are many instances in the constitution, where powers in their nature incidental, and which would necessarily have been vested along with the principal, are nevertheless expressly enumerated, and the power to make rules and regulations for the