Although the federal government is given limited rather than general powers, it cannot be said that it has no powers save those expressed in the federal constitution. In determining the meaning of any written document, whether it be a contract, a statute, or a constitution, it will frequently be necessary to determine the meaning by considering what is implied, as well as what is expressed, in the language used. It is manifestly impossible that every incident and detail shall be set out in specific terms, or that each circumstance calling for an application of the language used shall have been anticipated and provided for; and it is particularly true of statutes and constitutions that the intent of the law-making or constitution-making body will have to be inferred with reference to matters not specifically covered. The federal government, therefore, has not only the powers expressly granted to it by the constitution, but also those which by reasonable implication are included in or flow from those expressly granted. Indeed, this is specially declared in the constitution itself, which provides that Congress shall' have power "to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution" the powers conferred upon it (Const. Art. I, § 8,¶ 18).

It has never been questioned, therefore, that the departments of the federal government have' implied as well as express powers, but controversy may arise as to whether a given power claimed for the federal government as an implied power is properly implied in the grant of specified powers. In a controversy of this character there may be great difference of opinion; but the solution will be facilitated by bearing in mind that the meaning of the framers of the constitution is to be sought in the language used; and that an implied power which is claimed should be justified as a reasonable grant by implication in some of the enumerations of express power. At various times there have been conflicting views with reference to particular powers claimed as incidental, between those who consider themselves strict constructionists, and those who insist upon a liberal interpretation of the constitution. But in determining what acts are necessary and proper in the exercise of the enumerated powers, a liberal interpretation has been favored by the supreme court of the United States. It is perhaps not possible to improve on the language of Chief Justice Marshall, in announcing the rule to be followed in the interpretation of the federal constitution: "Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the constitution, are constitutional" (McCudoch v. Maryland, 4 Wheaton, 316, 421). Examples of the exercise of implied powers by Congress are collected in another place. (See below, § 117.)