The Rutland weekly globe. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1873-1877, 1876-02-11
COLONEL JoYCE's SPEECH.

COLONEL JOYCE's SPEECH.
We published last Friday morning, the
full text OF Colonel CHARLES Ii. Joyce's
"speech" on the bill making an appropria-
ton for the centennial celebration, and our
readers have had the opportunity of ascer-
tanning his reasons for his vote against the
measure. Believing, as we do, that his
vote was wrong and against the wishes of
the mass of his constituents, IT is but SIM
pie justice that he should have the oppor-
tunity of explaining his vote. Although
his "speech" was prepared for delivery in
congress, it was never 20 delivered, but, on
leave granted for that purpose, was pub
lshed in the Congressional Record. 1t is
therefore, addressed, not 50 much to his
colleagues in the house to convince their
judgment, as to his constituents to explain
his vote-and, as he can reach so large a
number Of his constituents in no other way,
we have published 1t in THE GLOBE, and
that at the earliest moment after receiving
a copy. We had a brief abstract OF the
"speech" week ago, but we preferred
and such, we presume, would have been
Mr.. Joyces wish-that his reason for his
course should be laid before his constitu-
ents unabridged and ungarbled.
Having carefully examined the several
grounds on which he seeks to justify his
action, we are constrained to say, that we
can see no reason for changing our opinion
heretofore expressed, that his vote was
wrong. AS briefly as may be, and we fear
that we may be somewhat prolix, we pro-
pose to examine his argument.
The first objection is that the bill is uu-
constitutional but we are not told in what
way it violates either the letter or spirit of
the constitution, or what particular clause
of the constitution is contravened thereby.
To us, the argument looks very much as
Martin l. Townshend said the arguments
of strict constructonist usually are-that
which they favor is constitutional, while
that to which they are opposed is uncon-
stitutional. If we read the opinions of our
highest courts and the commentators on
NA'S bhS 10
always in favor of the constitutonality of
a law, ard its nconsttutionality can
not be assumed, but must be shown. The
presumption, then, is in favor of the con-
appropriation, and this presumption Col
onel Joyce has not overthrown, or, 30 far
as we can see, attempted TO overthrow.
His argument simply amounts to this, that
the power of congress, under the consttu-
ton, to make the appropriation has not
been shown. Is this good reasoning If
such were the fact, would court decide a
law to be unconstitutional for this reason
alone ? The whole history of American
jurisprudence is to the contrary.
We venture to say further, that not one
word can be found in the constitution
which, by any reasonable construction, pro
hibits the exercise of such power on the
part of congress. If there is no such express
prohibition, is there one implied? Upon
this branch of the argument, precedents
are important as showing what has been, all
along, the uninterrupted practical construc-
tion of the constitution. Where is the
chapter and verse of the constitution that
allowed congress to charter a corporation
with its seat at Philadelphia, to incorporate
the Omitted States centennial commission"
or the centennial board of finance?" Yet
congress has passed such acts of incorpora-
ton, and their constitutional power to do
80 has never been seriously questioned. If
congress had the constitutional power in
the one case, had they not in the other
Congress appropriated the peoples money
for the relief of suffering Ireland, for the
search of Sir John Franklin, for the Vienna
exposition, for experimenting in tele-
graphy, for explorations in the polar seas
in the south, for the discovery of the north
pole, for the purchase of national cemete-
ries, for the erection of monuments, for the
purchase of paintings and other works of
art, for the construction of railroads, for
the entertainment of the dusky king of the
Sandwich Islands, and for thousand
other objects, which stand on no frmer
base than does this centennial appropria-
tion-and the constitutionality of these
several measures has never been seriously
questioned or denied.
1t congress was acting within the pale OF
the constitution in these cases, Is it not
now If the government can loan its
credit to corporation for building rail-
road, can 1t not to corporation intended
to supervise national commemoration of
national even; If congress can vote
money to purchase medals and erect monli-
ments to commemorate great achieve
ments, can 1t not vote money to commem-
orate great event In another way? If
congress can make gilt, or loan, to the
several states, or to corporations within
state, to provide an agricultural or COM
mon school education, can It not make "A
similar gift TO national corporation for
other purposes Without pretending TO