 At the suggestion of Alexander Hamilton, Congress charged him to assist the federal government in its financial operations. Thomas Jefferson and his followers protested violently. The Constitution, Jefferson pointed out, conveyed upon Congress a number of carefully enumerated powers. The power to charter a corporation such as a bank was not among them. The federal bank, therefore, was unconstitutional. To this, Hamilton replied, Congress under the Constitution may enact all such laws as are, quote, necessary and proper to carry into execution its enumerated powers. The bank is a necessary and proper means to collect taxes, to further the nation's welfare, to conduct war, and so on. The federal bank, therefore, is constitutional. Hamilton's view had been accepted by the President and by Congress. The bank's charter had been allowed to lapse just before the War of 1812. It was renewed four years later. But in 1818, the bank's existence was once more in serious danger. The case for and against the bank was argued before the Supreme Court of the United States within the framework of a case known as McCulloch v. Maryland. It can be said that the whole nation, by taking sides, participated in it. At stake, after all, was more than the existence of the bank. At stake was the reality and the vitality of a federal government. The fight against the bank was a fight to contain and limit the power of the federal government. The fight for the bank, on the other hand, was a fight to create a strong central government for the Union, capable of dealing with the problems of an ever-growing, ever-changing nation. McCulloch v. Maryland entailed of necessity the question, who is supreme? The federal government or the government of the several states? Chief Justice John Marshall delivered the court's answer in March of 1819. It was not at the time of popular decision, that's a fact worth remembering, yet it provided a cornerstone of the American system of government as we know it today. The origins of McCulloch v. Maryland go back to the last days of April 1818, when a Maryland official by the name of John James paid a visit to the Baltimore branch of the Bank of the United States. Subject of James' visit was the failure of the bank to comply with state law. Only Maryland bank was entitled to freely print notes which could be circulated and used as money. The bank of the United States was not. The federal bank said Maryland law must buy stamped paper from the state on which to print its notes. It must, in other words, pay a state tax on its operations. The Baltimore branch, so far, had failed to do so. Mr. James, John James, treasurer for the western shore of Maryland. I'm James McCulloch. You're the cashier. Yes, sir. At your service, Mr. James. Do you recognize that bank note, Mr. McCulloch? Yes, sir. It is a note issued by this institution, isn't it? Issued by the Bank of the United States in Baltimore, Maryland. That is correct. It bears your signature. Right again. Mr. McCulloch, you are no doubt aware that all notes issued by this institution must be printed on stamped paper, stamped paper bought from the state. Now I ask you, is that note printed on stamped paper? No, sir. No, sir, indeed. The paper you're required to buy, Mr. McCulloch, lies in my vault, untouched. I've offered you delivery, Mr. McCulloch, how many times, four or five times? I wouldn't know, Mr. James. I wouldn't know. I'm here to warn you, Mr. McCulloch. The law provides for a fine $500 for each and every offense. We'll see that you are made to pay it, unless you will assure us that you will comply and comply at once with the state regulations. Are you threatening to take the bank of the United States into court? Yes, sir. Yes, sir, indeed. It's a very interesting prospect. Put yourself, Mr. James. Big pardon? We have no intention of paying the state tax, not now, not at any time in the future. If under the circumstances you want to take us to court, please do. I'll see you in court, Mr. McCulloch. John James, as he said he would, brought suit against James McCulloch and the bank of the United States. What James demanded was that the federal bank pay the state tax as well as a fine of $2,500 for having issued unauthorized notes. The case was heard on May 8, 1818 in the County Court of Baltimore County. Mr. Martins? Yes, your honor? Mr. Martins, Mr. Pinckney's just informed me that his client is willing to admit to the facts in this case. That's reasonable. The bank's been doing business without paying the Maryland tax. It's common knowledge. I take it your client is aware of the provisions of the law. He is, your honor? Well then, is there any reason why this court should not find him guilty as charged? Yes, your honor, there is. We suggest that the Maryland law is unconstitutional. Unconstitutional? No state under the Constitution may lay a tax on a federal agency. Your honor, Mr. Martins, Maryland's a sovereign state, your honor. The right to raise revenues by laying taxes is founded in her sovereignty and guaranteed by the Constitution. Mr. Pinckney, I'm sure, will recall that under the Constitution only exports, imports, and tonnage are exempt from state taxation. Does he know of any reason why this exemption should be seen as including a bank? The right to tax without limit or control is essentially a power to destroy, but power to destroy a federal agency clearly isn't granted by the Constitution to any state. The argument works both ways, your honor. If the right to tax, in fact, implies the power to destroy, why do we allow the federal government to tax state banks? And we do allow it, don't we? Surely, if the federal government may tax state banks, the states may tax the federal bank. The Baltimore County Court sustained John James, McCulloch appealed, and the case went to the Maryland Court of Appeals. Here the crucial question arose, had Congress the power to create a bank in the first place? Mr. Martins, your honors, Mr. Pinckney claims that the right to tax implies the right to destroy. If this be the case, your honors, we should resist federal taxation of our state banks with as much determination as the federal government now resists taxation of its banks by the states. As a matter of fact, we've accepted federal taxation of our banks. Now, either both parties have the right to latest tax or none. Not so, your honors. Federal government and state governments under the Constitution are not equals. The federal government is supreme. Federal law, your honors, supersedes state law. Federal six of the Constitution, Mr. Martin, I'm sure will recall it. He does indeed. Federal law is the supreme law of the land, yes. Provided, your honors, provided it has been enacted in pursuance of the powers vested in Congress by the Constitution. Now, as it so happens, the Constitution of the United States is silent. It is silent on the matter of chartering banks. Mr. Martin, am I to understand that you consider the federal bank unconstitutional? Your honors, Congress twice chartered a federal bank each time the question of its constitutionality was gone over in great detail. Granted, however, the question as to whether or not the bank's constitutional is not for Congress to decide. It's reserved for the Supreme Court of the United States. Throughout 1818, states' rights man across the country rallied to attack the federal bank. Prominent among them were Virginians, men like Spencer Rohn, judge on Virginia's Court of Appeals, Thomas Richie, publisher of the influential Richmond Inquirer, John Taylor, planter and political philosopher, John Brockenbrough, president of the Bank of Virginia, whose mansion in time would become the White House of the Confederacy. Taylor and Rohn were disciples of Thomas Jefferson. Like Jefferson, they were profoundly suspicious of federal power. When they spoke of their country, they spoke of Virginia, not the United States. Banks are necessary and proper means to carry into execution the great objectives of our federal government. If a bank's a necessary and proper means of government, what is not? It was not too long ago that we defeated in Congress a bill which would have given the federal government the right to operate their copper mines. That rules about New Jersey. How do they try to justify that? By the doctrine of implied powers. Just as they're trying to justify the bank. As they said, it is authorized by the Constitution to provide for our common defense. Well, ships are necessary for our defense, a copper is necessary to build ships, a mine is necessary to provide the copper, a company is necessary to operate the mine. Therefore, Congress is authorized by the Constitution to operate the Roosevelt copper mines. Yes, sir. It was reasoning to remain unchecked. It won't be long before we'll have more to contend with than a federal bank. There'll be federally operated newspapers, federally operated mines, federally operated manufacturers, federally operated stage lines, name it, and the federal government will have its hand in it. State rights will be at an end. And state rights in this country are the bulwark of our individual freedoms. Gentlemen, the federal bank must be destroyed. Now let the doctrine or the implied powers remain unchecked and we'll never again be able to place limits on our federal government. In September of 1818, McCulloch v. Maryland was docketed in the Supreme Court of the United States. It then consisted of seven men, Chief Justice Marshall and Associate Justices Washington, Johnson, Todd, Livingston, Story, and Duvall. Power, Mr. Marshall, to a public official. Whether he holds his office by the will of the people or the grace of God, power is what monies to a banker. Not a means but an end, something of which he can never possess enough. That's the difficulty we're facing. The fact that our government is an elected one in and of itself is no guarantee, no guarantee at all against an abuse of power. In your opinion, Mr. Duvall, what is the Constitution strictly interpreted? A grant to the federal government of powers not expressly vested in it by the Constitution, in my opinion, is dangerous in the extreme. The Constitution, Mr. Duvall, allows the federal government to enact all such laws as are necessary to carry into execution all powers that are expressly granted. What does that mean? Strictly interpreted? Strictly interpreted, it's virtually meaningless. The term necessary, in my opinion, means indispensable, not just convenient, not just useful, but indispensable. Congress under the Constitution may enact laws without which the expressly granted powers could not be carried into execution. If federal bank is useful, it is convenient, but is it indispensable? It's not. Mr. Duvall, the need for a federal bank was proven twice, not once, but twice, during our war for independence and again during the war which we've now just barely brought to a successful end. Twice we almost perished, for lack of a government having sufficient authority to ensure our survival. The salient fact, Mr. Bartol, is that twice we survived without a federal bank. Mr. Duvall, the word and the purse, all external relations, and an inconsiderable portion of the industry of the nation are entrusted to Congress. Now it seems to me that a government entrusted with such vast powers can also be entrusted with ample means to discharge its tasks. Why claim to an interpretation of the Constitution which makes government operations difficult, even hazardous, and expensive? Expensive not only in terms of money, but also lives. Chief Justice Hazard, when the American people decided to form a union and to establish a federal government, they meant for it to ensure their welfare. You don't think, do you, that the framers of the Constitution, after granting vast powers for the public good, intended to impede their exercise by withholding a choice of means? You say ample means, Mr. Marshall. How ample? That is the question. Let's answer by saying that as long as the end is legitimate and within the scope of the Constitution, then the means, if they too conform to the spirit and letter of the Constitution, are legitimate as well. That's rather too generous to suit me, frankly. To be anything but generous, Mr. DeVal, is to rob the federal government of its ability to deal effectively with the nation's needs as they arise today and a hundred years from now, when the world may not look quite as we see it. Feeling against the federal bank ran high. Maryland by now was not the only state with a stake in the case. Half of the states in the union had, like Maryland, laid a heavy tax on the federal bank. Tennessee, Georgia, North Carolina, Kentucky, Ohio. Illinois and Indiana had gone even further, prohibiting the establishment of branches of the federal bank altogether. From Marshall's fellow Virginians, Roan, Richie, Broken Bro, and the men who represented Virginia in Congress, Tyler, Burwell, Johnson, came a move to destroy the bank before the Supreme Court had an opportunity to hear the case. Virginia would ask Congress that the bank's federal charter be repealed. Yes, Congressman, a motion to repeal. I don't know if it will carry. Congressman, the country is in one of the worst economic depressions since our war for independence. And whom are they blaming for it? Right or wrong, the federal bank. Feeding against the bank has never run higher. Will the motion carry? The people demand that the Congress set aside the Aidean and Sedition Acts. The people will demand that Congress repeal the federal bank. Well, your paper supports us, Mr. Richie. The National Press has been hammering at the bank for a year now. The motion will carry. I assure you. I believe it, but do you say farewell? There are two things to be considered. One, New England, the North and the East. They're fond of banking up there than they are of marriage. Two, Jimmy Madison. He's got his signature on the bank's charter. And I doubt that he'll want to see it go down and defeat. If he succeeds in keeping only half of the party in line, it will surely be that counts all pins in the plowed congressman will never yoker. Jimmy Madison won't lead us, Judge. Farewell's right. There's not a word in the Constitution that would suggest the idea of a bank to even the most fertile imagination. Yet they create a bank. And there's still not enough. The experiment is pushed further and further and further still. The sovereignty of our state is assailed with a threat to stupor but its most vital and essential power. The right of taxation. Gentlemen, you've all heard of the famous Fig Tree of India. The Strangler Fig. Its branches shoot from the trunk, spread, drop upon the ground, take root, and become trees. For which again branches shoot and spread and propagate and extend themselves until all available soil is covered and everything perishes in the steadily darkening shade. Even while Congress debated Virginia's motion to repeal the bank, hearing began on McCulloch v. Maryland. Charles Pinkney argued in behalf of the bank. It's been said that the Constitution does not contain the wood bank and that therefore a federal bank is unconstitutional. Could anything be more absurd? Congress under the Constitution may provide foreign support to Navy. Would it make any sense to say just because the word steamboat is not contained in the Constitution that therefore the use of steamboats by the nation's Navy is unconstitutional? Your Honors, the statute book of the United States is filled with powers derived by implication. Congress has the power to establish a postal service. Would anyone here question that it entails of necessity the power to establish post offices and post loads and even the power to punish the offense of robbing the males? Lighthouses, beacons, boys, and public peers are all established under the general power to regulate commerce. They're usefulness and a propriety. Have they ever been challenged? The power to lay and collect taxes will not execute itself? Congress must devise in all detail all the means of collection. A federal bank is such a means. What justification I ask you is there in saying that it is any less useful and any less proper than lighthouses, beacons, post roads, and post offices. On February 25, 1819, the motion to repeal the federal bank in Congress was defeated. Thirty yeas against 116 nays. A week later, Chief Justice John Marshall rendered the unanimous decision of his court. The Constitution of our country in its most interesting and vital parts is to be considered. The conflicting powers of the government of the Union and of its members, as marked in that Constitution, are to be discussed. And an opinion given, which may essentially influence the great operations of the government, no tribunal can approach such a question. The rank is, and I quote, a convenient, a useful, and an essential instrument in the prosecution of the government's fiscal operations. It's therefore constitutional. And the Maryland tax law? Unconstitutional. What's the argument? Article 6 of the Constitution. If the Maryland law were valid, I quote, then the declaration that the Constitution and the laws made in pursuance thereof shall be the supreme law of the land would be meaningless. The United States bank, everything. State sovereignty, nothing. The federal government will now keep growing and growing until Supreme Court must be stopped. Appeal to the people, majestic and irresistible power be invoked. I'm willing to place my rights and liberties in the hands of the state of Virginia. It's a government of men who are my neighbors. Men who know me and mine, as I know them and theirs. Men in whose election I participated. The federal government, with which they try to saddle us, composed of men most of whom I've never even heard of. Men over whom I have no control, whatever. Men who are completely ignorant and perhaps even indifferent to my most vital interests. The federal government, thank God I never will. I reply to what? We cannot too earnestly press on our readers the following exposition of the alarming errors of the Supreme Court of the United States. We are awfully impressed with the conviction that the welfare of the Union has received a dangerous wound. Reaching so close to the vitals is seemingly to draw the heart's blood of liberty and safety. That's comparatively kind. A Philadelphia advertiser accuses us of impure power and exorbitant ambition. This is the Richmond Enquirer. The article's by Hampton. Spencer Rohn? Spencer Rohn. State rights, he tells us, are the bone work of freedom and independence. State rights. The man doesn't know the history of his own country. State rights. We want our freedom and independence, not because of our system of government, but in spite of it. It was the insistence on state rights that drove us to the brink of disaster. And had not the will to fight and die for liberty united the American Army, we would have perished. I know it. You do, yes. But consider, my friend, your faith in the Union. To what do you owe it? Impassioned sermons? Logical reasoning? You owe to necessity. Unity taught you the value of unanimity, unity, common purpose, mutual support. Valley Forge. Princeton. Monmouth. There's where you learn. Paying for the knowledge you now possess with suffering, anguish, agony of body and soul. Where are the men then that oppose you now? Thomas Jefferson in his library. Spencer Roan on a school bench. Patrick Henry, George Mason, Samuel Adams. Not one of them bore arms. United we stand, divided we fall. For the Spencer Roans of this country, these are mere words. For you, it's a fact which cannot be denied. A man's keeps a dear school, yet fools will learn and know other. This fool, not accepted. You're quite right, my friend. A love of the Union, as I shared with an army of brave men. Men from Massachusetts, Virginia, Georgia, Pennsylvania. Men who talk me to see America as my country. Congress is my government. Men who I haven't forgotten. I know others have yet to learn and learn it in the manner in which you did. In his opinion in McCulloch v. Maryland, John Marshall established the reality and vitality of the federal government. At Valley Forge, the American Army almost perished because the states would not honor their commitments. The Supreme Court had now made certain that the Union and its central authority would never again be in such crisis. The whole would never again be endangered by a lack of cooperation from its parts. John Marshall, writing for the Supreme Court in McCulloch v. Maryland, undertook to produce a justification for the supremacy of the federal government in the powers granted by the Constitution. Persuasive enough to last through the coming generations. In this, he succeeded.