Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1859-02-18
LETTER w.


land. that To meet them or that ground
to fight with shadows The promoters Of Il
scheme, aware Of this. wisely evade the Co
stitutional question, and rest on the cXainp
of their predecessors. Abiding 10 hi, recon
nenda,ion, the President says:
II am encouraged 10 make this suggesto
by the example Of Mr. Jefferson, previous
the purchase Of Louisiana from France: and b
that Of Mr.. Polk. in view ol the acquisition
territory from Mexico
The Senate, committee also turning the
backs on the Constitution, have made dlligcr
search after prtcte'ent. In period ofscvent
wears they have found three acts with prov
sionS similar In those Of their bill 1t is d,i
to them, to the great names they quote, st
more TO the magnitude Of the question: tina
this plea should be examined Duly conside,
ed. We shall find that it demonstrates the ill'
yality Of their scheme and aggravatcs is ii,
merits.
The act, discovered upon the statute book
are those of February, lS03 and February
1906, placing money at the disposal oi NJ!
Jefferson, with view TO the purchase Of Lou
siana anil Florida and that Of the Sd March
lsi1.. 10 enable President Polk TO end his n"
on Mexico. by buying a portion oi her Terri
tory.
# womI hc uncandd to 'lcny that these act
in prncipIc-or rather in violating principle
'hcar strong resemblance to the bill before tn,
Senate. Yet, there are differences between
them 80 VERY marked as greatly 10 impair thcil
force. it, indeed, any force Is To hc allowed Il
unlawful acts.
There is some difference, for instance, in tn,
misappropriation Of two or three millions and
Of thirty. There is great difference between
the authority given TO the President, to borrow
at frt3 rate Of interest as in the two first
acts, and leaving that rate discretionary with
him, as in the present bill. There is an essen
tial difference between giri,iy tie fover TO bor
row money. as in the present bill. and giriHg
M such pguer as is the case in the act Of 1917,
which the committee say they adopted rs their
model
There is an immense difference between the
first prccc,lcn; that Of lS03-and all the rest.
including the embryo.projcct before the Senate,
in the objects to he accomplished. The main
object of the former was to eXtinguiSh the do
minion Of powerful foreign nation over the
mouth Of that mighty stream whose head
springs c,lSh from our distant mountains. and
which, with It's tributaries travcrseS our val
levs among the richest in the Universe ihou.
sends of miles; an object wcll-nigh indiSpcn>a-
BILE 10 the peaceful access OF our citizens To the
highway of nations and the markets Of the
world. The object Of the subsequent acts Of
lso6 and 1917, was the acquisition Of cont.
c,olIs territory, highly convenient and desirable
it was thought. but by no means necessary 10
the full enjoyment oil uur own possessions. The
present bill is still further departure from the
original precedent, and conlrrs extraordinary
and unconstitutional powers Oh the President,
la enable him to extend orr dominion over an
island in the ocean. belonging to friendly
power proudly resolved never to part with it,
Our pleas arc--l. The commanding u.futdcr
NJ CuLu orer Tie Gmdc Of Ike Mississippi raj
iu pass this, because candidly confess !
do not understand what il means. .. Eristing
difficulties These, presume, are now the
subject Of friendly negotiation 3. The tardy
relress for Cuban injuries. which, it is said. caI
only be had by circuit9us demands o" Spa'"..-
an Inconvenience resulting inevitably from th'
local position and political dependence OF Cuba
and which ,ce would obviatc by connecting h"l
with ne. and driving Spain and all other M
,ions TO circuitou, demand for redress. un
der similar circumstances to tho authorities n
Washington Lastly-EtUtnn! dnaoyaacts
Although, in the lapse Of a century. none hav'
occurred grave enough TO rausc resort e
hostiiitics. AMI their recurrence must daily be
come more improbable in consequence Of ou'
great and increasing ability to punish them.
Such are the grounds on which we offer in
suit. and seemingly mediate injury To com
paratiycly feeble Power. Shall we initiate tn
wolf in the fable, who could not drink from th'
sprinc at lis source. because the lamb mHdiic'
the stream below:
Our predecessors might hope To be exc';sc,
for obcying, as they considered it, the first law
of nature and nations. We stand CONDEMNED
for coyc,ng our neighbor's possessions, though
by no means essential to the fair enjoyment o
our own.
Let it. however: he granted. for the sake q
argument. that the precedeutS are directly II
point. The true question is, does the bill co"
form to the law Of the land hot whcthe
similar measures have been adopted before. -
So far from proving its legality, the precedent
demonstrate the reverse They were them
selves palpable and arowed inlractions Of th'
Constitution. As respects the first and mos
prominent tthat Of 1909 We have the franz
concession Of the great statesman who recon-
mcn,lcd il. that i, was unauthorized. In hi
letter to Judge Breckenridge, written shortl,
after the treaty had been entered into viii
France for the ccssion of Louisiana, after es
pressing his opinion that the treaty should b
ratified bv the Senate. Mr.. Jefferson goes OH t.
say:
But suppose they must then appeal to tli
nation for an additional article 10 The Cons'i
triton, approving and confirming an act whr
the nation had not prsriously authorised. Tn
Constivti.n has made no prorision fer on
holding foreign territory. stiN 's.s J"r lnr"'
poret;ng foreign notDps into orr Eni0n.
In subsequent letter 10 Wilson {. Niche
las hc repeats the same opinion:
"Our Iscuiiar scc"rity is in possession OF
urittsu Constitution. Let MS not make It
5Iank paper by roasir"s'jo".
Again; i,
present case n ,st az Tr.tmpts d1a'at broa
construction by appealing .J@- '"f P"'f'r
ne pcopLt."
While conseniing TO the act under sense
duty imposed by a controlling necessity nov n,''
earnestly docs Mr.. Jefferson seem to dread ii
evil influence as an example.
Not the gifted Seer. who read the huma
heart as book ever open before him. bette
knew the danger of erroneous prcccdent
When Bas>anio would have had the judy
,rre.t tie lar 10 his authority,
And 70 do srcl, rish; do i llt:le wrong
This was the wise and righteous Judgment
the second Daniel
e. II must no. be-
Twill u. recorded for precedent,
Agd many error by the same example
VII! ru-h into the state. II canno. b..
And now the vcnerated name Of Mr. .)cifc
Ion. the great advocate Of strict interpret
ton Of Federal powers. is paradcd before II
world to honor the very abuse he drcanc'
Iii, own act admitted to be unlawful. h'i' c'
forced as it were, by the pressure of imPeF'
tive necessity is, under different circ'in:tanc'
to far more dangerous extent. and asaih>' ~ ~
solemn protest. ritel a al t.n"Pst i'f u
broad construction he deprecated rs one "h'c
would make our peculiar security h'ahk p
pcr: nav. is i; not one which obltcrate: all r.