Source: Debate over the constitutionality of the proposed
national bank, Alexander Hamilton.
It is conceded that implied powers are to be considered as delegated equally with express ones. Then it follows, that as a power of erecting a corporation may as well be implied as any other thing, it may well be employed as an instrument or mean of carrying into execution any of the specified powers, as any other instrument or mean whatever. . . .
It is objected that none but the necessary and proper means are to be employed; and the Secretary of State maintains that no means are to be considered as necessary but those without which the grant of power would be nugatory. . . .
It is certain that neither the grammatical nor popular sense of the term requires that construction. According to both, necessary often means no more than needful, requisite, incidental, useful, or conducive to. . . .
If the end be clearly comprehended within any of the specified powers, and if the measure have an obvious relation to that end, and is not forbidden by any particular provision of the Constitution, it may safely be deemed to come within the compass of the national authority . . . A bank has a natural relation to the power of collecting taxes - to that of regulating trade - to that of providing for the common defense. . . .[Therefore] the incorporation of a bank is a constitutional measure.