Strict vs Loose

Before the Bank of the United States was created in 1791, Jefferson and Hamilton, political opponents, wrote to President Washington their reason against or for the federal bank.  Hamilton was creating his financial system as the Secretary of Treasury for the new federal government, figuring out a way to fix the finances of the new republic while also keeping it united.  The finishing touch to Hamilton's financial plan was this Bank of the United States.  This was a clashing point for Jefferson and Hamilton because they had different interpretations of the constitution that was ratified just a couple years earlier.
Jefferson believed that the Constitution means what it says -- exactly.  He insisted that because there was no specific authorization for a national bank in the Constitution it was not to be done.  He thought that it was a state right to charter a bank, not a power or right of Congress.  This interpretation of the Constitution is called "strict construction."  Jefferson"believed that what the Constitution did not permit it forbade."
On the other hand, Hamilton "believed that what the Constitution did not forbid it permitted."  This is idea of "loose construction" was to view the Constitution with a loose interpretation.  With the case of the national bank, the Constitution did say that Congress "may pass any laws necessary and proper to carry out the powers" and the government was explicitly allowed to regulate commerce and trade and collect taxes.  With these two ideas put together, Hamilton argued that Congress, in order to carry out the basic functions of finance, needed a federal bank, and that it was fully justified to do so.
Both of these men sent in their views on the topic to President Washington who, in the end, sided with Hamilton.  Congress had many a heated debate on this topic because, again, it was North versus South.  The northern financial and commercial centers were enthusiastically for the bank, while the agricultural south was its strongest opposition.
I believe that Washington made the right decision because in the end a national bank allows for regulated in and out flow of money.  It also allows the states to become more unified, after they each set up their own, individual currencies and systems, a national bank brings everything together, and this was the main goal at the time, to keep the country together.