Most of this descriptive account turns over familiar ground, but there are some points that cannot be found in a standard work on M'Culloch. First, there is a substantial discussion of the corruption and mismanagement by the Bank's directors that was revealed shortly before the case was heard. In contrast to the First Bank, which "had a largely exemplary record, characterized by a generally reserved approach to its tasks," the Second Bank "operated for the benefit of its stockholders rather than as an instrument of national fiscal policy" (65). Under the unfortunate leadership of William Jones, who had recently declared personal bankruptcy, the Bank's aggressive lending practices fueled land speculation that was a major factor in the Panic of 1819. This economic downturn, which coincided with Marshall's opinion, undercut the Chief Justice's paean to federal power and gave ammunition to M'Culloch's opponents. Second, the analysis of the congressional debates in 1811 (on the failure of the First Bank's charter) and 1816 (on the creation of the Second Bank) adds important context to the much better known clash between Hamilton and Jefferson over the First Bank's charter. Third, the book offers a much-needed review of the oral arguments in the case, which lasted for nine days and included such luminaries as Daniel Webster and Luther Martin. Since Marshall issued his opinion just three days after these arguments ended, Killenbeck probably gives them more attention than the Chief Justice did.

     The book's chief weakness is that the author does not explain why M'Culloch became a great case. This is particularly important because, as Killenbeck acknowledges towards the end, Jackson destroyed the Second Bank and his political allies rejected Marshall's reasoning. In a few hurried pages, the last chapter argues that the Legal Tender Cases, decided after the Civil War, "made it quite clear that M'Culloch was the guiding spirit for what followed" and that "Jackson's efforts to repudiate or minimize M'Culloch had failed" (179, 181). This is true to a certain extent, but that begs the question of why M'Culloch is lionized while the Legal Tender Cases are now neglected if they did the real work. Moreover, even after the paper money cases were decided the Court did not adopt the broad reading of M'Culloch that is now accepted as gospel. The missing link is the New Deal, which needed to find precedents for its transformation of the federal role and found one in a selective reading of Marshall's opinion. Rather than writing a ten-page epilogue on James M'Culloch, the named party in the case who was a colorful character but largely irrelevant, the author would have done better by exploring the decision's canonical status in greater depth.

     In sum, this is a fine work that brings every thread of M'Culloch v. Maryland into a single volume. As an example of legal argument that combines politics, structural analysis, precedent, and pragmatic considerations, the debate over the Bank of the United States should be part of every constitutional law curriculum.