Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1826-11-21

the GENERAL WELFARE and that no reference
10 the people Is necessary for an amendment TO
enable The federal authorities 10 carry into effect
any inca ure whatever that has the general well
fare' for its end and purpose. That 10 suppose
the people would tie up the hands OF their repre-
sentatives, and throw obstacles in the way OF all
proposals having national utility or their object, l.
pro. POSITION too monstrous TO be adopted. =
IS This early difference in the construction OF the
constitution, il at present in train oil discussion
II came up as question in Congress originally,
with the successful incorporation OF the national
Bank in 1891; and lately with the motions to lay
out and Afterwards to repair the Cumberland Road
This led to the general question OF internal I'M
provemenis, and implied and constructive powers
for which there other pretence but their oeing
conducive to TIL general welfare; which according
TO Mr.. ]. Q. Adams and his administration, Is the
polar star OF our government, and motive sum
Client to justify the House of Representatives IN
making appropriations for any measure which IN
their opinion can be brought within II. For, ac-
cording to them, this Is in fact the great OBJECT
of all government, il cannot be otherwise In our
own
Bu, this is not all the evidence, which you have
furnished OF your recent opinions Though you
lave formerly denounced the doctrine OF the Gen
eral Welfare, yet hotr are we to understand the
fo'lowing.remsrks in ynur very last article! In
your anxiety to vndicate yourself from the impu-
tation OF inconsistency, you say:
=. With respect TO " Mr. Monroe's Memoir
on Internal Improvement. (admittng the power TO
appropriate money for Roads and Csnals) the
Enquirer has wholly failed 10 make out of
Inconsistency against US. The Editors, endea-
voring to do SO, recur to "a brief but pregnant
article, which you wei published in the Summer
Of 1926" Here follows the whole of that r.
ticle:
We enter our protest against the HEnEsy,
that mere surplussge in the clause of the Consii
tuition. concerning the laying of taxes, conveys a
Substantive power to do any thing which Con-
gress may conceive TO be conducive to the general
velf're! If this doctrine is 10 prevail, consoli
ddttou is no longer chmera of the brain, and
the states are mere parishes of an omnipotent and
overwhelming General Government. The doctrine
is exactly the anipode OF what is usually called
the Virginia doctrine, but as much more danger
than that, as, in the politics OF free Govern
ment, unlimited confidence is more TO be dreaded
than unreasonable jealousy.
Nat. LfeHigencer Of .7prii z, 1925
Is Is there any thing in this which conflicts with
Mr.. Monroes docrine? Surely not. The para
graph exactly expresses the views now enter
tain; for the real rights of the States and Sove-
reigniy OF the People have no where stronger ad
vocates than we. Congress has po,rer to " ap.
propriate money for many things. whilst there
many things which it cannot appropriate mo-
ney TO do or perform. IL cannot appropriate mo-
ney makea religious establishment: it can appro-
pirate money for even so hateful purpose pay
ing tribute 10 Barbarian power. Thanks TO
our PREBLEs and DEcArURs, we have found
out way of paying that tribute in powder and
lead instead of gold and silver.] There is nothing
in this paragraph which we might not consis, entl Y
have incorp r'aed in the very article TO which the
Enquirer was replying. If the appropriation
clause of the Constitution had been intended onl Y
70 give power to Congress to appropriate money
for purposes designated in the express grants, il
must be obvious TO the most superficial reader
that the trainers of the Constitut on would have
said Congress shall have power to lay and col
lect taxes, to pay the debts and for the foio,cing
enumerated Purposes,' instead of saying sc 20
pay the debts and provide for the common de-
fence, and general iCclfdre."
Nat Int. Of Nov 10, 1926.
To an intelligent reader, an elaborate comment i.
unnecessary. We conceive, that your extract O
April 1925 is not only in conflict with Mr.. Mon.
roe's Memoir, but your present opinion. In 1872;
you held that the words to Z" provide far tn.
common defence and general ,oeifare'' were
i" mere surpiusage." But you now contend thai
they do give IS q substantive po,Uer; for, if they
do not, the trainers of the Constitution ought tc
have omitted them, and simply said {" and TO,
the foito,cing enumerated purposes. - You
now therefore contend that Congress can apr opri
ate money for other purposes than those
g designated in the cypress grants"-and as
trary TO the Constitution;" in other words
for any purpose, which is not expressly pro-
hibiied by the Constitution, touching +" the
common defence and general welfare Taxing
your whole doctrine, then, together, we under
stand you saying, that the power of appropria-
ton is so broad and indefinite, that jusfcs the
application OF money to the transportation of our
freedmen and the manumission of orr slaves; tina,
il covers splendid scheme OF internal improve
ment; the cultivation Of the sciences both orna-
mental and profound;'' in fine, the promotion oil
any object which is :" not contrary to the Goa
stitution''-Thus making the Federal Govern
ment that /" omnipoeit s. overwhelmng'' mon
ster, which you SO strongly deprecated in April
1926
On the contrary, gentlemen, we hold from the
very history Of the Constitution, from the spirit
which breaihes through it, from its very letter. and
especially from the 10 h article Of its Amendments
from the co,emporaneous Exposition at the moment
OF its creation, that the Constitution is an in.
strument conveying specific, expressed and limit
ed powers the true theory OF which may be found
in the following passage from the Essay recent
Iy published, aud which we have already refer
red to:
Z" Hence, our executive, legislative and judicial
authorities subordinate. limited and derys alive
The bounds limits Of their authority are express
ed in the Constitution, which is the instrument -
the power of attorney drawn up by the delegates
chosen for that purpose; in which these delegates
have conferred power and authority under such
conditions, and within such limits they thought
Ike public welfare might require. These condi-
> tons and limits binding the authorities who
accept the trust and derive ihsir powers under the
Constitution so drawn up: nor (a4 have said be-
fore) they honestly add to, or alter the nature
of the powers thus conferred, or extend or alter
their limits for by the same right they may claim