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

as Wis 10 nave Oeen anuclpateu from the source
from which, it sprung. Taxation Was confined
by rules of 4 Just relation to population of the
exclusion of all preferences, commercial or fs-
cal; of invariablc adherence to standard of
uniformity. mo capi:ation, or other direct
tax, shall be laid, except in proportion TO The
census" &c. " No tax shall be laid ON articles
exported" nc. 6 No preferences shall be Civ
en- by any regulations Of commerce or revenue,n
&c. All duties, iruposts, sc. shall be uniform
throughout the United States" Sc. Such were
tae precautions against inequality oftaxation.-
But of what value would he these precautions, ic
similar restraint were not provided in relation
to the power OF expenditure? The confine-
ment of taxation TO "A rule of Justice were vain,
If tins and every other rule, blu. oicapricc, might
be con:iescended In the disbursement of its
fruits ! What then was the safeguard in this
respect! The exercise ofno powercould trans
cend the objects of the government. This was
rule of reason applicable to every trust of pow
err. Here, then, was one restraint on the at-
propriating power. A restriction of explicit
character was added. The power Of taxation,
from The indefinite character of public cxigcn-
cies, was necessarily one of the largest. The
power of appropriation, which was subsidiary,
would pass with itin the same extent without the
necessity ofeypression. Its conveyance to this
extent, however might prove a source of incon-
veniencc, because an appropratiag power was
| not subject to the restraint which attached to a
! taxing power, from the invidols and apparent
character OF IFS operation. In what manner
then, was prccaution to be applieds OF what
| form of restraint was power of appropriation
susceptible, without Impairment of its ciIicicncy'
There was one form only of designation of the
objects to which il should be confined This is
the form of the restraint which has been applied
Congress might apply money, not TO all objects
of political authority, indifercnt!y, or to any at
discretion, but to purposes connected with the
| " common defence aud general yvelfarcn onl;
Their critcfian had been already indicaicd-
Such as were of national character relating TO
| the whole Union Us distinct nation or commu-
nifty. To this class of objects it had appeared
| that internal improvements did not belong. The
jurisdiction OF them was not embraced, there
| fore, by the scope of the national authority.
| An examination OF the power under oonsi-
dcration, had demonstrated its want of affinity
| to Che character Of the Government, the unpro-
piticus tendency ofits influence as respected the
highest interests of the Union, and its inccnsis-
tencc with restrictions established by essential
provisions of the constitution. The presump-
| ton from this concurrence of objections was TO
be considered as very forcible against the VIII
dity of the power. Was the claim to it sustain
cd BY fair construction of the language of the
constitution Before proceeding to this in
curry, two difficulties were to be removed II
had been supposed that the question was con-
cluded by the authority of preceding decisions.
But it was to be remembered, that the authority
| Of precedent was rot applicable to a legislative
jurisdiction. Courts were bound by precedent.
because the ends of their jurisdiction reauir-
| ed uniformity of decision. But the end of le-
gislative jurisdiction required that its decisions
should be varied as occasion might demand, till
correctness were attained. Neither did prcce-
dent exert an operation on questions of the va
lldity OF the exercise of power. These were
submitted to the authority of conviction only.
The subjects submitted to precedent, related to
the exercise ofopinion OF Judgment; but ques-
tons involving an application of moral princi-
pie, that Of the just fuflment or abuse of trust
of power, though they did not exclude advice,
refused submission to positive authority
1t had also been supposed, that the consent of
the States in which works Of internal improve
ment were to be executed, might supply anv
defect ofthe authority Of the General Govern
ment. BUTT was to be remembered that the con-
currence of all the States had been requisite to
give form to the federal compact. A power.
then, could not be admitted in single States, to
vary arrangements to which the concurrence of
all had been necessary, and in which the inte-
rest was common. The abuses liable to flow
from such doctrine were obvious. There was
no limit to the enlargement of jurisdiction it
might involve, or tho purposes to which this en- i.
largement was susceptible Of employment.
There could be no other source, then, of the
power, tan Just exposition of the parts of the
constitution which were supposed to have relati-
on to the grant fit These Mr.Archcr proceeded
to examine. The first clause to which attcnti-
on had been attracted, (by the Spcakcr,) was
that conveying authority to GO establish post Off
oes and post roads.n Mr.. Archer thought that
in relation to this part of the subject, the Speak
er had failed, mot from any intention, certain
ly,) IN treating fairly the argument of his col
league, (Mr. Barbour,) who opened the debate
on the present motion. He 1.-THE Speaker) had
supposed Incorrectly ,)that his colleague had in
terpreted the word ''establish,' in the sense of
the word adopt ard the remark was perfectly
Just, that this Interpretation was neither warran-
ted by the proper import, nor would stand the
test of application with other parts of the consti-
| tuition in which the expression was employcd-
1t was both nearer to the true import, however.
and better fitted to stand the test of this anDli-
cation, than the import which the Speaker had
! suggested, which was the sense of the word
| build' or construct 1t would be found on
| examination, that the word never had any sinni-
fication of this kind and how would it hcar ap-
plication in this sense to otter parts of the con-
stitution' We arc at liberty to read in the pre-
amble, that the People ofthe United States, {" in
order to construct justice,n had " ordained and
constructedn this constitution for the United
! States ~ Would it be a proper employment of
| language to say, that Congress had power to
- oonstructn uniform rule of naturalization,
and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcy,
&c? The explanation of the whole difficulty
Ill relation to this word " establish" was afford
4 ed by the fact, that il presented I'm different
! modes OF its cnDiOyJnent an APPARENT variety of