THE  POSTAL  SAVINGS  BANK  ACT

37

indemnity  bond.  These  provisions  appeared  to
a  majority  of  the  Senate  to  meet  the  requirements ­
  of  safety  and  of  an  adequate  interest  yield,
and  to  keep  the  funds  in  the  local  community  as
effectually  as  any  plan  that  could  be  devised.
Shortly  before  the  bill  came  to  its  vote  in  the
Senate,  however,  it  was  vigorously  attacked  on
the  ground  of  unconstitutionality,  particularly
by  Senators  Rayner  of  Maryland,  Bailey  of
Texas  and  Root  of  New  York.  The  principal  defenders ­
  of  the  constitutionality  of  the  bill  were
Senators  Sutherland  of  Utah  and  Bradley  of
Kentucky.  The  constitutional  arguments  were
on  an  unusually  high  plane.  The  constitutionality ­
  of  the  hill  was  defended,  of  course,  under  the
doctrine  of  implied  powers.  Ignoring  the  discussion ­
  over  the  “welfare  clause”  of  the  Constitution, ­
  which  on  the  one  side  was  interpreted  to
mean  almost  everything  and  on  the  other  side  to
mean  almost  nothing,  we  find  the  proponents  of
constitutionality  basing  their  arguments  chiefly
on  three  clauses  of  the  Constitution.  (1)  The
power  “to  coin  money”  and  “regulate  the  value
thereof”  was  to  he  interpreted  “to  confer  upon
Congress  the  power  not  only  to  coin  money  hut
to  provide  and  maintain  an  adequate  currency  for
the  country.”  Postal  savings  banks  would  be  a
proper  means  to  that  end,  since  they  would  call