The Rutland daily globe. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1873-1877, 1876-02-05
COLONEL JOYCE's SPEECH.

We published, yesterday morning, the
"speech" on the bill making an appropria-
tion 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, II 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 so delivered, but, on
leave granted for that purpose, was pub
lished in the Congressional Record. 1t is,
therefore, addressed, not so 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 n
number Of his constituents in no other way,
we have published 1t in THE GLOBE, and
that at the earliest moment after receiving
copy. We had 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 prolx, 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 |. Townshend said the arguments
Of strict constructionist usually are-that
which they favor is constitutional, while
that to which they are opposed is uncon-
siitutiona. II we read the opinions of our
highest courts and the commentators on
the constitution Alright, the presumption Is
a law, and its unconstitutionality can
not be assumed, but must be shown. The
presumption, then, Is in favor of the con
stitutional power of congress to make the
arpropriat ou, and this presumption Col
onel Joyce has not overthrown, or, so far
rs we can see, attempted to overthrow.
His argument simply amounts to this, that
the power of congress, under the constitu-
ton, to make the appropriation has moi
been shown. Is this good reasoning? II
such were the fact, would court decide Q
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
hlbts the exercise of such power on the
part of congress. If there is no such express
prohibition, is there one implied? Upor
this branch of the argument, precedenti
are important as showing what has been, al
along, the uninterrupted practical construc
ton of the constitution. Where is the
chapter and verse of the constitution that
allowed congress to charter corporation
with its seat at Philadelphia incorporate
the "United States centennial commission