Page:Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (1st ed, 1833, vol I).djvu/457

This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
CH. V.]
RULES OF INTERPRETATION.
417

§ 432. In the practical application of government, then, the public functionaries must be left at liberty to exercise the powers, with which the people by the constitution and laws have entrusted them. They must have a wide discretion, as to the choice of means; and the only limitation upon that discretion would seem to be, that the means are appropriate to the end. And this must naturally admit of considerable latitude; for the relation between the action and the end (as has been justly remarked) is not always so direct and palpable, as to strike the eye of every observer.[1] If the end be legitimate and within the scope of the constitution, all the means, which are appropriate, and which are plainly adapted to that end, and which are not prohibited, may be constitutionally employed to carry it into effect.[2] When, then, it is asked, who is to judge of the necessity and propriety of the laws to be passed for executing the powers of the Union, the true answer is, that the national government, like every other, must judge in the first instance of the proper exercise of its powers; and its constituents in the last. If the means are within the reach of the power, no other department can inquire into the policy or convenience of the use of them. If there be an excess by overleaping the just boundary of the power, the judiciary may generally afford the proper relief; and in the last resort the people, by adopting such measures to redress it, as the exigency may suggest, and prudence may dictate.[3]


  1. See the remarks of Mr. Justice Johnson, in delivering the opinion of the court in Anderson v. Dunn, 6 Wheat. R. 204, 226; United States v. Fisher, 2 Cranch. 356; S. C. 1 Peters's Cond. R. 421, 429.
  2. M'Culloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. R. 316, 409, 410, 421, 423; United States v. Fisher, 2 Cranch, 358; S. C. 1 Peters's Cond. R. 421.
  3. The Federalist, No. 33, 44; M'Culloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat R. 310, 423.