I have said that this veto revives the Dred Scott decision. It does more. It is bad to revive the worst decision in our history; but this veto practically sets aside one of the best decisions in our history. I refer to the case of _M’Culloch_ v. _Bank of Maryland_, where our great magistrate, Chief Justice Marshall, expended all his marvellous talent in expounding the powers of Congress under the Constitution. In all the annals of the Supreme Court there is no decision more carefully considered or wrought with a finer skill. In this remarkable judgment it has been positively declared, that, where the Constitution confers upon Congress certain powers, it is within the discretion of Congress to determine when and how they shall be exercised. Here are the precise words:-- “The government which has a right to do an act, and has imposed on it the duty of performing that act, must, according to the dictates of reason, be allowed to select the means; and those who contend that it may not select _any appropriate means_, that one particular mode of effecting the object is excepted, take upon themselves the burden of establishing that exception.… Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the Constitution, and _all means_ which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, are constitutional.”[219] According to this authoritative text, Congress must determine the “means” it will employ in the exercise of its powers. But this veto pretends to despoil Congress of this discretion. In the exercise of its discretion, Congress has undertaken to assure civil rights to colored persons. It has been moved to this especially in pursuance of the second clause of the Thirteenth Amendment, where it is empowered to enforce the prohibition of Slavery by appropriate legislation. The present bill is regarded as essential to enforce the prohibition of Slavery, and Congress, in the exercise of its discretion under the Constitution, has passed it. But the veto comes to arrest this discretion. So far as its influence goes, it will neutralize and nullify the great Amendment by which Slavery has been abolished. It leaves the letter in the Constitution, but it takes away the powers by which that letter is made a living soul. * * * * * I have said enough to condemn the veto. I have shown, first, that it revives a most odious judgment, and, secondly, that it subverts a received rule of interpretation, and degrades that Constitutional Amendment which is the glory of our recent history. But I go further. … THE CITY OF BOSTON AND MR. SUMNER. LETTER TO THE MAYOR OF BOSTON, IN ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN, MARCH 5, 1866.