On the other hand, it is to be conceded, as a feature of the utmost importance in this case, that, when property of any kind to a vast amount is thus appropriated, the considerations which influence its appropriation should correspond in magnitude to the extent of the interests at stake. When the taking and cancelling of certain claims practically involves the social condition of four millions of the inhabitants of the United States and the industrial and financial interests of six millions more, it is desirable that the considerations to justify so radical and far-reaching a change should be in the nature of imperative official duty rather than of speculative opinion or philosophical choice. Let us proceed a step farther, and inquire if there be circumstances, and if so, what circumstances, under which it becomes the right and the duty of Congress to take and cancel the claims in question. The controlling circumstances which bear upon this case may be thus briefly stated. 1. The Constitution (section 8) confers on Congress certain essential powers: as, to collect taxes, without which no government can be supported. 2. The Constitution (same section) authorizes Congress to "make all laws that shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution" these powers. 3. If Congress fail to carry into execution these powers, the Government is set at nought, and anarchy ensues. 4. An insurrection, extending over eleven of the States comprising the Union, now prevails. 5. Because of that insurrection, the essential powers granted to Congress by the Constitution cannot be carried into execution in these eleven States. 6. Because of the resistance offered by these insurrectionary States to constitutional powers, it becomes the duty of Congress to pass all laws that are necessary and proper to enforce these powers. All this will be conceded; but a question remains. Who is to judge what laws are necessary and proper to carry into execution the powers, expressly granted by the Constitution, which are thus obstructed and defeated? This question has been determined by the highest legal tribunal of the United States, speaking by the mouth of one who will be acknowledged to have been her most distinguished presiding officer. In the well-known case of McCulloch against the State of Maryland,[8] Chief-Justice Marshall delivered the decision of the Supreme Court; and by that decision the following principles were established:-- [Footnote 8: February term, 1819. 4 "Wheaton's _Rep._, 316. Unwilling here to multiply words, I pray reference to the decision itself.] 1. The construction of the words "necessary and proper" in the above connection. The Chief-Justice says,-- "The term 'necessary' does not import an absolute physical necessity, so strong that one thing to which another may be termed necessary cannot exist without that other."