The Handsboro Democrat. [volume] (Handsboro, Miss.) 1858-1878, 1859-03-01


tioned-Fortrcss Monroe. Il is
| necessary for the defence Of tic
town Of Norfolk which lies above
I il. But suppose the town Of Nor
folk was worth $4,000 900, and
il would cost S100,000,000 to con
struci the fortification then | would
rather give up the town than con
struct the fortiiicaiioE; because
| the expenditure would so far exceed
the necessity Of the case as not 10
Justify mo under the constitution
| in voting for it. That is putting
the case rs n mere matter Of dol
lars and cents. / agree TO the pro-
position that whenever an appro-
preparation is necessary, absolute
| ly necessary; for national defence,
yon must have the poweEto mako
| it, but see no such absMntc nc
ccssity in this case. | 20 further
and admit that il the necessity is
so probable that by applying n
Just and fair discrimination 70 the
case, it appears TO be a necessity
likely to arise, then you may make
the appropriation, provided The
amount OF money asked for does
not greatly exceed the necessity
Of tie cssc. Bat / cannot agree
that every supposed, ideal or i'm
aginary necessity, justiiies appro
priaiions from the national Treas
ury.
And now, Mr.. President, upon
another point; the point Of differ
ence between tho powers Of the
Government over the Territories
and States. | have stated hereto
fore, and now reiterate, | hope
more distinctly than have ex-
pressed it before, because | want
to be understood on the point,
that ifit be admitted that Congress
has the power to make an appro-
priation to construct railroad in
a Territory, know Of no reason
| why Congress cannot make appro-
priaiions to construct railroads in
the States, except this, that by 20
ing into the States you violate the
sovereignty Of the States, and il
the States. by memorial, express
i cd through a convention OF lis
people, invites the Federal Gov
ernment to make a road. | do not
see but that tho whole difficulty
is avoided. You do not 90 into
the State according TO the argu-
ment, simply because in doing SO
you violate its sovereignty. Iftho
State valves the right, it seems 10
me the argument is avoided. /
strike the question lower down.
] deny the right Of the Federal
Government 10 exercise this sort
of authority over the Treasury
except npon the grounds that |
have already stated-that is, a ne
cessity, immediate or proxima.c
that a prudent man would prepare
to meet il. ] deny your right as
much TO construct an unnecessary
road in a Territory, as ! deny il
TO construct an unnecessary road
in the States. -
And | assert that the necessity
must be immediate and pressing,
and not remote and contingent;
and that the appropriation must
bear some proper relation TO tie
necessity of the case.
| content myself with asserting
that if You have the power 10 make
appropriations for the constrnc-
ton Of railroad in a Territory,
you have the same power to make
appropriations to construct rail-
roads in 4 State, when vou have
the consent of the State express
cd through its sovereignty. |
yielded the point the other day,
as a debatable one at least, that
the Legislature and Governor can
not speak for the sovereignty of 4
State; bat If the State in conYen-
tion shall make it a part Of her
organic law, that a railroad may
be constructed within her limits,
then, for the life Of me, | cannot
SEQ how the sovereignty Of the
State is outraged by the Federal
Government doing that which the
sovereign invites her TO do. ! DO
not see that the rights Of my State
ara violated at all by your doing
what she, speaking through q con-
ventioa Of her people, invites you
TO do.
II has been suggested, in the
course Of the argument. that the
consent eT the State conld neither
enlarge or diminish the powers cfl
the Federal Government. This IS
simply . truism- Indeed, il can
not, in any proper sense And I
vet, it i trae, yoa may 10 that |
within the limits Of the State, !
with the consent Of the State, 1
which you cannot DO without IT. /
Il has been said, in the course /