, 1841-10-23
SPEECH OF MIR. CALHOUN.
OF SOUTH CAROLINA.
In Senate Of the United States August %,
l94l On the Distribution Bill.
OF SOUTH CAROL
Mr.. CALHOUN said :

Mr.. CALHOUN said
If this bill should become Il law, it would
make a wider breach in the constitution. md
be followed by changes more disastrous. than
any one measure which has been adnpted.-
1t would, in lis violation of the constitution.
60 far bryound the general welfare doctrine
of former days, which stretched the power of
the Government rs far as 1T was then sup.
posed was possible by construction. however
bold. But, as wide rs were the limits; while
this bill as | shall show. rests on principles
which, if admitted, whould supersede all
limits.
According to the GENERALLY welfare doctrine,
Congress had power to raise money. and ap,
~propriate it TO all objects which it might deem
calculated TO promote the general welfare.
that is, the prosperity of the States. regarded
in their aggregate character as members of
the Unionr or to express il more briefly. and
in language once so common. to national OBJ
iects; thus excluding. BY necessary implica-
ton, all that were not national. rs ialiinI
within the spheres of the separate States
As wide as are too narrow for this bill. 1t
takes in what is excluded under the general
welfare doctrine and assumes for Congress
the right to raise money. to glr" ny dls'ribu-
ton 10 the States; that is, 10 be applied by
them to those very local State objects TO
which that doctrine. by necessary implica-
ton denied that Congress had a right t. ap.
appropriate money. and thus superSeding all
fhe limits Of the CONSTITUENCIES far at least.
rs the money power is concerned. The nd,
(vocates of this extraordinary doctrine have.
indeed attempted to restrict it. in their argu.
ment. to revenue derived from the public
lands; but facts speak louder than words
To test the sincerity OF their argument az
ter amendments have been offered to limit
the operation of the bill exclusively TO the
revenue derived from that source, but which
as often as offered have been steadily voted
down bv their united votes. Bat | take
higher ground. Tile aid of those test votes.
as strong as they are. is not needed 10 make
good the assumption that Congress has the
right TO Law and collect taxes FIR the sepa-
rate use of the States. The circumstance
under which il is attempted to force this bill
through, speak of themselves Il language too
distinc, to be misunderstood.
The Treasury is exhausted; the revenues
from the public lands cannot be spared; they
are needed for the pres ing and necessary
wants Of the Government. For every dol
lar withdrawn from the Treasury. and to the
States, a dollar must be raised from the Gus
toms 10 supply its place; that is admitted
Now ! put it to the advocates of this BILL
is there, can there be, any real difference ell
Their in principle or effect. between raising
money from customs, 10 be Divided mOng
the States, and raising the same amount from
them to supply the place Of an equal sum
withrawn from the Treasury to be divided
amonr the States? If there be Il difference
ms faculties are not acute enough 10 perceive
II: and | would thank any one who can to
point It out. But. if this difficulty could be
surmounted. it would avail nothing unless
another, not inferior, can also be got over.
The land from which the revenue, proposed
70 be divided is derived was parchased with
the exception of the small portion of the
small portion comparatively, lying beteen
the Ohio and Mississippi rivers) one of the
common funds of The Union, and with mon
ey derived for the most part. from customs.
lido not exempt the portion acquired from
Georgia, which was purchased at its full val
ne, and cost as much, in proportion as Flor
ida purchased from Spain or Louisiana from
France.
If money cannot be raised from custom
or otner RESOURCES LOT uistfioutioh,i eSn, iio"
can money derived from the sales of and
purchased with money raised from the GUS
toms or other resources be distributed among
the States' If the money could not be distri-
buted before it was vested in land, on what
principle can it be when it is converted back
again INTO money by the sales of the land?
Tiprior 10 the purchase it was subject, in
mailing appropriations, to the limits pre-
!ssefibed BY the constitution, how can it after