Constitutional Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1824-1832, 1824-02-20

gwen occasion TO even larger discussion. He
referred To the clause authorizing the passage Of
All claws necessary and proper" for carrying
the granted powers into effect. Authority to
this extent passed without expression. In tho
grant of the substantive objects of power, nece,
sary and proper Incidental power was involved.
Was the clause, then, inserted, merely from
abundant caution, to ascertain this grant of in
cidcntal power? 1t was inserted from a motive
of much higher caution, to coniinc this grant, by
a character of essential relation to the cnume-
rated powers. All Incidental powerinight have
been construed to pass, aud the design was, to
prevent the implication ANY. which should not
have the character OF being necessary and pro-
per, III reference to las ends. Inc provision
not one vi hberaity, but jealousy and res
friction. a similar policy dictated thc pro,i-
sion under review, authorizing appropriation to
objects OF "COnmon defence and general wei
inrc." The taxing power, which was one ofthe
largest, would draw with it power of appropri-
alton OF commensurate extent. Ii was conss-
tent with. the dcsi ,n of the Government, and
prudent, to guard this power by restriction to
objectSp national concern. This was done in
.he words 6 to provide for too common defence
and general welfare.'' 1t was not 10 be infer
red however, from the union liz the clause, of
common with general objects OF interest that
they were conceived as belonging to Il common
class. If this had been the case. the two cx-
pressions would not have been employ ed in con-
neXlon; for there was no word in the Constit:I-
ton which had not an appropriate Office, well
as Specification. .he expression would have
been, to provide for the common defence and
weliare-or, the general defence and welfare
and not Tor the common defence and general
welfare-if n discrimination between common
and general objects had not been dcsirncd.--
And what was this distinctions Had the wori;
common and general an identical Specification
Common was g that OF which several partook."
Common interests were those In which the
Stat s partoolk, severally. General, imported
an " abstraction from particulars" The into
rests distracted .ron sach is were particular,
and several, were those which attached to the
Union, in a corporate, artificial capacity; as Il
distinct political community. Common, or Sc
veral interests, not objects of proper fctle-
raj character. They were not coniidcd, there
fore, to the federal authority in mass. One on
ly," defence, was conidcd. The reasons for this
concession were peculiar. But, as respected
general or corporate Interests, which were APP
proprIate to the general authority, exclusively,
the power Of attainment had no limitation. 1t
was only necessary to ascertain whether an OBJ
Jcct belonged to a common corporate charac-
ter related to the several interests ofthe States
or the general interest OF the Union, to deter
mine whether it belonged 10 Federal juris,lic-
ton. Asrcspectcd objects of Internal Improve
ment, it would not be disputed, that they be-
ionged to the class OF several, and not of corpo-
rate orgcneral interests. They were not, there
fore, appropriate to the jurisdiction.
He had now, Mr.. Archer said, reviewed tn
several clauses assigned as the stplrccs of the
power, and II did not appear to be sustained .
afalthtu exposition CT either of them. Infer
encc from the objects of the Constitution. led to
the same result Every oracle OF Just intcrprc-
tation, when intcrroratGai, RESPONDED in nc.ra-
ton OF the power. The Speaker had represent
ed as species Of trcaGhcry, the refusal to ever.
else granted power. Without Contcstnr the
CORRECTNESS of this proposition, which was ,u-
doubtcdiy laid down, however, with too little Ii
imitation, 1t was treachery of Il much higher or
der, to exercise ungrantcd power, or even that
OF which the concession inig int fairly be consider
cd doubtful. Inc power, III the present Instance
must be admitted TO be nj least of doubtful cha
racter, and the rule of public and of private mo-
raiity was the same, to forbcar action, the law
iuincss OF which was questionable. 1t was to
be remembered, too, with character Of what
peculiar danger, the exercise of doubtful power
was fraught, in relation to this government. The
Union could only be considered safe, in the due
observance of the peculiar and delicate distribu-
hon OF power, prescribed by our wise. but com
pllcated frame Ofpo!it-. The State would tiy
off from their orbits of relation, in the event OF
the law other attraction being Disturbed. u
Mon was the guarantee ofinterests of the high
est order and the Constitution was ,ile fortress of
union. But this fortress, Mr.. 4. said would be
abandoned, if its defences were permitted to be
dismantled by construction, SO as no LONGER to
present barrier to discretionary power.
Mr.. A. concluded, by saying, that lie was
sensible he had presented, inadequatclv, the
views Of the question: he had to offer. He would
not, however, forego the claim of zeal in dis
cussion, the principle ofwhich was of inexpres-
sble Importance.
From The Washington Republtca,, Ertra