Page:The Supreme Court in United States History vol 1.djvu/543

Rh Federalists (Marshall and Washington) and of five Republicans (Johnson, Livingston, Todd, Duval and Story), there seems to have been little doubt expressed at the time as to the probability of a decision adverse to the State. "I have no doubt of the result," wrote Webster to Jeremiah Mason before his argument ; and "of the decision I have no doubt,*' he wrote again, after his argument.^ On the floor of Congress, as early as February 24, it was stated that there was reason to believe that the Court would "determine that the United States Bank has a right to extend her branches over every individual State in the Union, and the States have no right to prune them/' Partly because of this belief as to the approaching judicial decision, there ensued in the House of Representatives, during the very days of the argument in Court, a heated debate over a bill to repeal the Bank's charter. Through this de- bate, the Dartmouth College decision, rendered only three weeks before, was curiously interwoven with the McCvUoch Case ; for some of the Bank's supporters denied the power of Congress to repeal, relying largely on this decision, but overlooking the fact that the prohibition in the Constitution against impairing the obligation of contracts was directed only against State action. Congress has no power to repeal, argued Louis McLane of Delaware. "The charter is a con- tract under decision of our own Courts." "Chartered rights are sacred things. . . . Violation of charters has ever been deemed an enormous grievance, " argued John Sergeant of Pennsylvania. "If a Legislature as- sumes the power of annulling contracts, it loses the privilege of making them," said William Lowndes of South Carolina. On the other hand, James Pindall of Virginia pointed out that the Constitution forbade the

1 Maton, letter of Feb. 15, 28, 1819; Webster, XVI.