Mr. BAKER. Mr. Speaker, Ihope, as anew member here, I will not be deemed obtrusive in the desire to say to the House that my strou impresson is that this bill should not pass, an to briefly state my reasons therefor. 1st, this bill, asI understand it, creates what purports to be an elcemosynary corporation or charitable purposes, with prorietary rights in the corporutors; this right o owner ship becoming, by operation oflaw, absolute in the corporators attend of 5 years. The money the corporation will receive as charitable contributions for the promotion of emigration, &c., may, under the terms of the bill, be invested in lands, the title of which will at once vest in the corporation, and the rents of which accrue to the corporation, or be loaned on landed security, the interest going to the corporation, and the principal, too, at the end of we years. This is what understand the words of the bill will admit of, though I may be mistaken. The bill confers an immense and exclusive privilege on a small number of persons to lease purchase, hold sublet, and convey lands, an oan money, without limitation as to interest, on mortgage or pledge of growing crops, there being no effectual limitation as to the amount of land or money which may thus be held or loaned, for I do not understand the 3rd section, or the 5th (amended) section, to be such ialimitation. Those sections may be dispensed with almost entirely by the corporation; and if not dispensed with they are still not a limitation, for they provide for a capita prsotopeekr of tendollar shares by subscrition, and do not, after a nominal compliance With these sections, interfere with the receipt of donatives, the holding of lands, and the loaning of money on any interest and to any extent the company may desire under the powers given by the 2nd section. 2ndly, this bill will be a precedent for corporations, for the conferring of special privileges on the few, which, if it becomes a law an is followed up, may lead the way to shing ling the Republic over with cororate privileges originating in the central government. This is a ste toward consolidation which I am not prepare to take, and one which I fear would have a most crnicious influence on the institutions and liberties of the country. I do not want the policy of this Government brought. under the influence of mammoth colorations of wealth and power, originating int c center and exteiiding in long radii through and overthe whole country. We can find a better cement qfunion than that. Nor will I be seduced to entering on such a course by any a peals to charity. We can find a better metho of doing our legislative aims than that. 3rdly, the power to pass such an act is exceedingly doubtful. The doctrine of McCulloch vs. State of may land, holding the constitutionality of the U.S. Bank, is “ as follows: the poorer of establishinga corporation is not a distinct sovereign power or put! of government, but only the means of carrying into cffeotother powers which aresovereign. Whenever it becomes inappro priate meansof excrcmng any of the powers iyen y the constitution to the Government of the mon, it may be exercisedby that Government.” and the powers cited for this pu one by Chief Justice Marshall, as authorizing tccreation for a bank, were the powers to levy and collect taxes; to borrow money; to regulate commerce; to declare and conduct awar; and to raise and support armies and navies. In executing these powers the court thought abank might, byimplication, be incorporated; and the court places stress on the greatness of these powers and their vital importance to the existence and safety of the country. Now, I ask the Gentfrom Massachusetts Mr. Bourwnuj to state what part of the constitution is relied on to justily the creation of the corporation provided for in this bill? Iain persuaded the case cited will not cover the proposed corporation.