The weekly clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1863-1882, 1882-04-19
A Department of Agriculture.

permit the Occd5tOH W pass hAt4oAs
dissenting from the views of the writer
and showing that they are unsound and /
unsupported either by logic, or consider
ations of wise public policy. The lead i
ing idea upon which our correspondents
otposition to the measure is based, is,
that it is con .rary to the granted and
the implied powers and duties of the
federal government as defined in the
Constitution that its objects are not
national, but are for the advancement
of a particular industry and the class
engaged in it. What ia this industry
1t is AGRICULTURE -the very r0ck-bed
of the revenue, the resources, the
wealth, the prosperity and power Of the
government. The class referred to
represents twenty-eight millions Of the
fifty millions population of the United
States. It owns fourteen billions,
comprising nearly Cne-half,) Of the
property values Of the United States.
| 1t furnishes eighty per cent. of the
exports of the country and pays nearly
the same proportion Of the taxes that
support the government. Is PROPOSE
ton to give this industry representing
majority Of the population, and the
chief agency of the wealth, revenue and
resources Of the country, 70 be put on
f5otin. with scheme to place "a dane
inc master in the Cabinet?' or derided
as thing ''to tickle the fancy Of the
Granger element p Aud by the way,
we mar as well remark that as the
Granger element" represents the bone
and sinew, the productive resources Of
the country, an Intelligent legislator
might well be pardoned for advocating
measure which would show proper
appreciation Of their interests without
being accused Of an ignobie motive to
'stickle their fancy" and fatter them for
their votes. "Anti-COnsolidatiOE says
there is no warrant in the Constitution
for creating a Department of Agricul-
turc. Nor Is there an express grant
for any other Cabinet officer. The
Cabinet Office is statutory provision.
A proposition was made in the Conven-
| ton that framed the Constitution to
make. Cabinet officers a part of the
Constitution, and it was rejected. They
were left to be provided by law as ex-
perience and the necessities of the
country might prove them to be neees-
sary. Hence, in the beginning Of the
Government there were but three Cabi-
net offices, the Departments of State
Treasury and War. After time the
office of Secretary Of the Navy was
created. Next, of Postmaster-General.
Then Secretary of Interior, and later
still, the Department of Justice. By
this manner the Cabinet Offices have
been increased from time to time, in
the discretion of Congress. The pre-
cedents are ample, and the power is in
cluded within the outlines prescribed by
the Constitution. 1t is within the scope
Of the authority to promte the general
welfare, and embraced in the Sth Sec
ton which authorizes Congress to make
all laws which shall be necessary and
proper to carry into execution the dele,
gated powers. Chief Justice Marshall
in speaking of the discretion vested in
Congress, said:
'Let the end be legitimate, let it be within
the scope OF the Constitution, and a means
which are appropriate. which are plainly
adapted to that end, which are Prohibited
but consist with the letter and spirit of the Con
stitution, are Constitutional"
"Anti-Consolidation" asks, why not
have Department of Medicine etc.
The answer is plain, and it covers the
other questions of the same import
which are intended to be knock
down arguments. A Department of
Medicine has not been shown to be
necessary. 4 National Board of Health,
however, has been established and it
meets the requirements of the govern
ment, but most assuredly the power to
create National Board of Health i'm
plies the power to create such a depart
ment if the necessity existed.
In no other of the great countries of
the earth, has agriculture received as
little consideration as it has from the
government of the United States. In
England the interests of agriculture
are confided to a Board of Trade, and it
is proposed to substitute it with Min
lister of Agriculture. France, Russia
and Spain, all have Departments of
Agriculture. The United States is
tagging behind them, following the
well-worn ruts instead of moving to the
front in the progressive march of the
nations.
''Anti-C Consolidation" asks, ''if its a
good thing for the nation why is it not
for the State ?" There is no argument
in the question, but if there was we
would answer, that there is a Depart
ment of Agriculture called by some
name or other, in most of the States,
notably. Mississippi, as our correspon-
dent will learn if he will refer to
Campbell's Code, section 720 under the
head of Commissioner of Immigration
and agriculture.
The opposition to one of the bills in
troduced in Congress that it provides
that the President shall appoint a
farmer to fill the proposed Office, relates
to a mere matter of detail, and does not
touch the merits of the main question.
For the reasons we have mentioned the
Department ought to be created. The