Democratic standard. [volume] (Georgetown, Brown County, Ohio) 1837-1850, 1845-02-18

in the House Of Representatives Jsnu
sy 10, ls45.
(Cunlinued.)
The Supreme Court Of the UniIec
States, in the case Of Martin VS.. Hunter
q Wheat R, 304-S G. 3. PEERS Cond
R. 575, say:
'rhe government, then, Of the United
States can claim no powers which are moi
granted 10 il by the constitution; and the
powers actually granted must be such as
ars expressly given, OF given by nscesss'
~ duplication. On The other hand, this
i1shumeLt like every other grsul, is TO
have reasonable construction, accor-
ding 10 the impori Of its terms, And
whete a power Is expressly given in gen
esal Terms, il is not 10 be restrained to
parliular cases, unless that construction
grow uatof the 0hlext expressly or by
necessary implication. The words are
TO ba taken ia their natural aud obvious
sense, aud moi 10 sense unreasonably
restricted OF enISrged.'
And Justice Story says, in his Com.
menlary on the Constitution, vol 2, sec.
425-
"A power given in general terms is
not 10 be restricted TO particular cases
merely because il may be susceptible Of
abuse; an iE abused, may lead 10 mis-
chieVOns consequences. This argument
is ollen used 10 public debate an in its |
cOmmUn aspect addresses itself SO much
10 popular fears and predjudlces that il
iaseusibiy acquires weight in the public
mind u which il i iiisno wise el titled. |
Sec. 427:
N hes been observed with great Correci
nass thai, although tle spirit Of al instru,
meat especially Of coastiluiion--ls 10
be respected not less than ills l9tter, YET
iis spirit i to be- collected chiefly from
The letter. Il would be dangerous 10
tho extreme to infer from exlrinsc cir,
Ctmslances that case, for which the
words Of an instrument expressly provide,
shall be exempted from lie Operaiion.'
The constitution on ils face, then on
any correct rule Of 0nstfuction that could
b. applisd & it'll could mt be doubted,
tuglIorizsd C0hRresato admit Te4as j1to
eUnien as SIsla. But the fsiRpds Of
this sueas0fa did DOT faar to tf8vel. out
af ihs consliluli0n inio The history Of
tie clause Under consideration; iale.iis
coniempaFanaous iniei ipfela,iop---iHlo The
praclicAl expoalliOn Of il as evidenced by
IIle subsequent acliOn Oi tho government
In lis various depnrlmenis. All these
sources Of Information and construction
would strengthen, iilt we're possible 10.
add strength 10 the plsin expression Of
the constitution ilselr, ths inlerpreiaiioH
which he had given to the clause under
consideration The admission Of other
States was contemplated by the original
founders Of the republic. ItwHs pfovi
del in The 'Original article ol confsderas
ton as follows:
Article XII Cansda, aceeding tOthis
confederation, and joining ia the meas.
nres Of the United States, shall be ed
milIOd into and entitled 10 all advantages
Oi this Union. but no other colony shall
be admitted into the same, unless such
admission Be agreed 70 BY nine States
Thus Canada had thsFighl 10 admis.
sion upon her own ctof accession and
joining in The measures Of the United
States I'D any olheE Of the colonies
could have bean admitted BY the consent
Ofnine Out Of the thirteen otiginalSiaies.
ID page 2i6 Of the Fsdsrslisi, the au-
thor says;
sThe eventual Establishment Of new
States. IOlher lhu6 lhe colonies seems
10 havaheeR overIa pked BY the cOnpilers
Dfthat insirnmeo lthe article ofcon-
federation We have seen ihs incon
FeRiencs 0l SD omission. .ana lhe assumps
liQn Of power into which Congress las
been Jed hy n With great proprisiy.
therefuEe. 81 ihe nsu system supplied
,ho daiscl
How dla he new system llte conslis
tntIon m i now stands supply The de-
iacii Eha answer s obvious, By giving
- puesess lhe general unrestricted. ID.