"In regard to the suggestion, that a proposal was made, and
rejected in the convention to confer this very power, what was
the precise nature or extent of this proposition, or what were
the reasons for refusing it, cannot now be ascertained by any
authentic document, or even by any accurate recollection of the
members. As far as any document exists, it specifies only
canals. (Journal of Convention, p.376) If this proves anything,
it proves no more, than that it was thought inexpedient to give a
power to incorporate for the purpose of opening canals generally.
But very different accounts are given of the import of the
proposition, and of the motives for rejecting it. Some affirm,
that it was confined to the opening of canals and obstructions;
others, that it embraced banks; and others, that it extended to
the power of incorporation generally. Some, again, allege, that
it was diagreed to, because it was thought improper to vest in
congress a power of erecting corporations; others, because they
thought it unnecessary to specify the power; and inexpedient to
furnish an additional topic of objection to the constitution. In
this state of the matter, no inference whatever can be drawn from
it. (Hamilton on Bank, 1 Hamilton's Works, 127)
"But, whatever may have been the private intentions of the
framers of the constitution, which can rarely be established by
the mere fact of their votes, it is certain, that the true rule
of interpretation is to ascertain the public and just intention
from the language of the instrument itself, according to the
common rules applied to all laws. The people, who adopted the
constitution, could know nothing of the private intentions of the
framers. They adopted it upon its own clear import, upon its own
naked text. Nothing is more common, than for a law to effect
more or less, than the intention of the persons, who framed it;
and it must be judged by its words and sense, and not by any
private intentions of members of the legislature. (Hamilton on
Bank, 1 Hamilton's Works, 127, 128.)"