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.
