Alexandria gazette & daily advertiser. [volume] (Alexandria [Va.]) 1817-1822, 1819-07-03

40 claimed such an enlargement, on the
ground that our constitution is one of a vast
republic. whose limits they have pom
pously sw elled, and vastly exaggerated.
The supreme court has not claimed "such
enlargement" on the ground stated ny this
very inaccurate writer, or on any other
ground.
After stating truly the extent OF our
great republic, the court says, 1.-The exi'
gencies OF the nation may require that the
treasure raised in the north should be trans
ported to the south, that raised in the east
conveyed to the west, or that this order
should be reversed. Is that construction
ofthe constitution to be preferred which
would render these operations difficult,
hazardous, and expensive &c.
| refer to this whole paragraph in the
opinion and aver that not syllable Ut
tered by the court, applies to an enlarge
ment of the powers of congress. The
reasoning of the judges is opposed 10 that
restricted construction which would en-
barrass congress, in the execution OF its
acknowledged powers and maintains that
such construction, il not required by the
words of the instrument, ought not to be
dopled of choice but makes no allusion
to construction enlarging the grant be-
you'd the meaning of its ends. The charge
Of having ''pompously sweiled. and greatly
exaggerated" the limits of the United
States, would be too paliry for notice.
were II not to remark, that, even in the
most unimportant circumstances, Hamp-
den delights to cast unmerited censure.-
The court had said. "From the St. Croix
t. the GuIph of Mexico, from the Atlantic
to the Pacific. revenue is to he collected
and expended. armies are TO be marched
and supported. And is not the st. Croix
our northeastern boundary Is not Lou-
siana bounded by the Gulph of Mexico on
lie south Does not our late treaty with
England establish line between the ter
ritory Of the two governments, to the Pa.
ci6c And do we not. independent of our
unratifed treaty with Spain, claim the
mouth OF the CoIu mbia, which emp;ies in
to that ocean?
"The supreme court" says Hampden,
"also claimed favor in this particular. on
account of the magnitude of the trust con-
fded to the general government"
This charge, like every other, is totally
uniounded. The language of the court is,
t" the sword and the purse, all the exter-
nal relations, and no inconsiderable por-
ton of the Industry of The nation, are en-
trusted TO its government. II can never I've
pretended that such vast powers draw at
ter them others which are inferior, merely
because they are inferior. Such an idea
Gao never b- advanced. But it may with
great reason be contended that a govern
ment entrusted with such ample powers,
on the due execution of which the happi-
ness and prosperity OF the nation so vi,alIy
depend, must also be entrusted with am
pie means for their execution. The power
being given, il is the interest of the nation
to facilitate its execution. 1t csn never be
their interest, and cannot be presumed to
have been their intention, to clog and en-
barass its execution"
And | ask If every sentiment here advan-
ced be not strictly true? Congress has
power to raise armies. Whatever doubts
Hampden may entertain of the propriety OF
granting this power, Can he seriously con
tend that its execution should be so ciogsed
and embarrassed as that the troops cannot
be raised in the manner most economical
and most convenient TO the people? 80
cons ress has power to levy taxes, with this
ony limitation, that direct taxes shall be
to numbers, AMI indirect taxes
shal be Uniform. Does he 50 construe the
as to iinpose other limitations,
or TO inhibit CONGRESS from raising taxes ny
the means least ,AntLcnsore 10 The peop.e
But be this IS ii may, it Is most obvious
tina, The opinion does MOI even hint the idea
ascribed to it by Hsmpden So Tar from
sugse sting that an enlarged construction
is 10 be inferred from the magnitude OF the |
trust. it expressly rejects this Inference Ivy
saw ny. cit can never be pretended that
such vast powers draw after them Others
which are inferior. merely because they |
are INFERIOR The argument is plainly |,
advanced nv the court in opposition to that /