The southern press. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1850-1852, 1852-02-24

/
Intellectual fires before the excessive light If
the great federal sun, for one, sir, do not be.
lleve so poorly Of thepower of truth over the
, American people, as to suppose that such .
cause can be los. by their verdict. On the cor.
trary, ] say TO them, and to all who hear nv
voice, that conjure them in the language Of
4 the dying Calhoun to his colleague. and bid
,lem "never despond." Sir they are few,
nno~, but perhaps not too few to stand in the
pieaun until others may come to the rescue
Ley mem 10 their duty for the day, and take an
appeal rom Me present to the rising generation
81 no y: .,Ay come W relieve them on the morrow.
or, = were 70 dsse to tell the dream of nv
,ans s"o c. gay thst seem to hear the dis
upon the defences which quad III r;nb,s 20 ~
States, and who will restore The Cons,;,mt;nn ~
the country-not, sir, the Consultation a. n i
now known in federal classes and saoanaro,s
commentaries, but in all the rigorous ssn nl;o;t,,
and purity OF its original creation
But, Mr.. President the Senator from Tennis
see said that we had prevented this distribution
and opposed it, because we could nowhere find
in the Constitution the power of the federal GOV.
ernment TO distribute money among the States
Sir, we could not find it; and | must say that
ne has not shown US where the power existed or
how il was to be derived from that instrument.
And would say generally of his speech on yes
terday, that il seemed more designed to unsettIe
the opinions Of others than to fix or de6ae his
own tie made long argument in Alvor Of
distribution, and yet he said he wouldnot 60 for
it now, because he had some idea here was to
be general war in Europe, and>that we might
desire TO take hand in it. pdt as he well I'M |
derstood how costly this pfght be, he was dis
posed to exrend the feSeral treasure in fleets
and other military preparations. Therefore. he !
aIid, ie wsoia not g !, for distribution now; and
yet he would vote for the amendment of the
Senator from Kentucky, which would certainly
make very vigorous commencement of the =
system, as i seems to me. He said, too, if I
understood him, that the new States were I'M
generous and iliberal in claiming these grants
Tor themselves, while the older States could get
nothing, ana thought was attacking the bill
with good deal of vigor. Yet after that mr.. II
gument which he urged SO earnestly. he CON
eluded by saying that he should vote for the
bill
Now, it seems to me that, in some way or
other, his arguments and his votes have been
strangely mismatched; that is to say, If have
rightly comprehended his arguments and cor.
rectly understood his declarations as to his votes
But, sir, he has accused US of opposing distribu-
tion for the want of the constitutional power
to distribute money amongst the States Before
making such complaint, it would seem to me
that 1t devolved on him TO show the existence
of the power. Has he done il? can he do IL!
If it exists at all, it is given by that clause of the
Constitution which gives Congress the right to
dispose of the public property /; and il claimed
for this purpose, il must be created as an indef-
mite grant of power; and SO in times past it has
been treated. There il no other way in which
he can deriveit. And yet, when you come to
apply tests to that proposition, that gentleman
and others will shrink from II. All admit that
you cannot dispose of the proceeds of the lands
for the establishment of church, or for creating
nobility; because IL is said tbs Constitution
prohibits such things expressly. concur with
this answer But does not the Constitution for
bid US to exercise any powers which are not
granted to us in express terms or by clear i'm
plication? According to that instrument, all
powers not thus conferred are reserved to the
States. The power to give money to the States
is certainly not granted expressly or by implica.
ton anywhere in the Constitution, unless it is
contained in the right to dispose of the public
property. Now there is no reason why this
power should be contained in the general right
to dispose of this property more than any other
power. If you can infer this, you may infer
any other disposition Of the proceeds for what
ever object with as much rropriety, so that. &C.
cording TO this construcior there is an indefinite
grant Of power, which would destroy the limita-
tons Of the Constitution itself.
But according 10 our construction, the power
TO dispose Of the public property is not more
general than that Of laying taxes, like The last,
is so limited, that IL can only be used to carry
out the powers given by express grant or clear
implication-in which list is nowhere TO be
found the right to distribute money amongst the
States Now which construction, Mr.. President,
harmonizes best with the Constitution, his or
ours submit il 10 the country 10 say The
country has spoken upon this question hereto
fore, and decided against him. II the right ex-
lists TO distribute money amongst the States,
which arises from sale Of the public lands, II
also exists in relation 10 that which is raised by
taxation. You caunot admit il in the one case,
and refuse il In the other either IN theory or
practice. Suppose you attempt 10 make the
distinction. You refuse TO distribute the
money arising from customs, but you invest il
in the purchase or the Louisiana or Florida ter
ritory. The lands thus purchased you sell again,
and the money thus obtained you distribute, af.
ter Il has gone through this process. And thus,
you do indirectly, what you said you could not
do directly. SIR you cannot maintain the dis
tinciion between the right 10 distribute money
raised In the one case or The other. II the
power exists IN the one case, IL exists also In
the other; and IL you exercise II in the one.
you will soon discover that the time j. not far
distant, when You will exercise it as 70 both.
What, sir, could be more dangerous, than to
make the States dependent upon ebe bounty OF
the general government Sir, we alie-ed the
articles Of confederation, because they made the
general government dependent upon the States
for supplies; and shall we now reverse the
thing, and make the States dependent upon the
general government, for The means Of domestic
legislation! EspeciaIly,shalI we do SO on the
condition proposed, and what is that condition
The Senator from Kentucky has shown Us
that IL is 20 be done upon the condition OF our
controlling the domestic Legislation OF The
States, and perhaps in the end their county po-
lice. And what Is TO be the effect OF distnbu-
ting this property among the various sections OF
the Union? What would II begct but the bit.
terest strife and most unwhocsome agitation