Econlib

The Library

Other Sites

 Front Page arrow Titles (by Subject) arrow REMARKS ON AN EXTRACT FROM HAMILTON'S REPORT PUBLISHED IN THE RICHMOND ENQUIRER. mad. mss. - The Writings, vol. 9 (1819-1836)

Return to Title Page for The Writings, vol. 9 (1819-1836)

Search this Title:

Also in the Library:

Subject Area: Political Theory
Topic: The American Revolution and Constitution

REMARKS ON AN EXTRACT FROM HAMILTON’S REPORT PUBLISHED IN THE RICHMOND ENQUIRER. mad. mss. - James Madison, The Writings, vol. 9 (1819-1836) [1910]

Edition used:

The Writings of James Madison, comprising his Public Papers and his Private Correspondence, including his numerous letters and documents now for the first time printed, ed. Gaillard Hunt (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1900). Vol. 9.

Part of: The Writings of James Madison, 9 vols.

About Liberty Fund:

Liberty Fund, Inc. is a private, educational foundation established to encourage the study of the ideal of a society of free and responsible individuals.


REMARKS ON AN EXTRACT FROM HAMILTON’S REPORT PUBLISHED IN THE RICHMOND ENQUIRER.mad. mss.

In the Richmond Enquirer of the 21st is an Extract from the Report of Secretary Hamilton, on the Constitutionality of the Bank, in which he opposes a resort, in expounding the Constitution, to the rejection of a proposition in the Convention, or to any evidence extrinsic to the text.1 Did he not advise, if not draw up, the Message refusing to the House of Reps. the papers relating to Jay’s Treaty, in which President Washington combats the right of their Call by appealing to his personal knowledge of the intention of the Convention, having been himself a member of it, to the authority of a rejected proposition appearing on the Journals of the Convention, and to the opinions entertained in the State Conventions? Unfortunately the President had forgotten his sanction to the Bank, which disregarded a rejected proposition on that subject. This case too was far more in point, than the proposition in that of the Treaty papers. Whatever may be the degree of force in some of the remarks of the Secretary, he pushes them too far. But the contradictions between the Report & the message are palpable.

January 25, 1826,

TO MORRIS ANTHONY.1

Montplr., Jany. 27, 1826.

Dear Sir:

I have just received your favor of the 24th instant, and am much obliged by the friendly attention of which it is a proof. There must be some mistake in the case it mentions. No dividend or stock of the United States can belong to me. On my first entrance into public life I formed a resolution from which I never departed to abstain whilst in that situation from dealing in any way in public property or transactions of any kind, and I am satisfied that during my respites and since retirement from the public service I never became possessed of any stock that could give me a title to the derelict in question. It is possible that my father whose name was James and who had I believe a few public certificates accruing from property impressed or furnished for public use, may have neglected after funding them, or the unclaimed dividend may possibly belong to the estate of Bishop Madison whose name was also James.

If you will have the goodness to add to the trouble you have taken a discriptive notice of whatever circumstances of date, of place, of amount, etc., may aid in its tracing the ownership of this balance on the Books, I will put it into the hands of the Acting Executor of my father who will make the proper examination of his papers.

Mrs. M. desires me to make the proper return for your kind remembrances, and joins me in assurances of our cordial respects and good wishes, and of the pleasure we should feel in repeating them within our domicil.

[1 ]The extract was as follows:

“The Secretary of State will not deny that, whatever may have been the intentions of the framers of a constitution or of a law; that intention is to be sought for in the instrument itself, according to the usual and established rules of construction. Nothing is more common than for laws to express and effect more or less than was intended. If, then, a power to erect a corporation in any case, be deducible by fair inference from the whole, or any part, of the numerous provisions of the constitution of the U. States, arguments drawn from extrinsic circumstances regarding the intention of the convention, must be rejected.”

Washington’s message of March 24, 1796, said:

“Having been a member of the General Convention, and knowing the principles on which the Constitution was formed, I have ever entertained but one opinion on this subject. . . .

“There is also reason to believe that this construction agrees with the opinions entertained by the State Conventions, when they were deliberating on the Constitution. . . .

“If other proofs than these, and the plain letter of the Constitution itself, be necessary to ascertain the point under consideration, they may be found in the Journals of the General Convention, which I have deposited in the office of the Department of State. In those Journals it will appear, that a proposition was made ‘that no treaty should be binding on the United States which was not ratified by a law,’ and that the proposition was explicitly rejected.”—Annals of Cong., 4th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 761.

[1 ]From the original kindly loaned by Frederick D. McGuire, Esq., of Washington, D. C.