The progressive farmer. [volume] (Winston, N.C.) 1886-1904, 1890-07-29
IS THE SUB TREASURY PLAN
v CONSTITUTIoNAL7

4H0 u A1Oo6uL pan A
posed, and is being discussed, and
first among those who oppose 1t, stands
Colonel Oats, Congressman from Ala
bama, to deny the cons situtionality OF
such a measure. l am willing to give
Colonel Oates credit for honesty, and
for possessing the "courage of his
convictions "a trait too rare in these
latter days among public men. | have
had personal acquaintance with him
for thirty years in peace and in war,
and have always found him ready to
encounter danger in the defence Of the
principles he believed t. be right.
Hence l shall not impugn his motive
nor cast discredit on the degree of
moral courage requisite in a member
of Congress represen ing an agricul,
tural people to antagonize legislation
that in my judgment, would rebound
greatly to their happiness and pros
perity. Being myself a lawyer Of
over thirty years standing, | desire
to consider in a calm and lawyer-like
manner, the constitutional question
sprung by my esteemed friend, Colonel
Oates. AS lawyers, he and | are
about the same in length of experience,
both having been admitted to the bar
at the same term of court in Alabama,
by the same Judge, in 1853; however
l feel at liberty to take greater priv
Ieges with him than | otherwise would,
since he has attained to no small dis
tinction in public lie, while l am yet
an humble disciple of Bia ,kstone, Kent
and Story.
The reason urged for the u~nconsti
tutionality of the Sub Treasury plan
is "no authority in the Constitution
for the Government to loan money"
Grant for the sake of the argument
that the Sub Treasury plan is a plan
by which the government is to lend
money to farmers on their deposits of
produce. l do not admit this, for |
think the editor of The Economist
meets this phase of the question most
successfully. But grant that it isis
there any power in the Constitution
for the government to give, money q?
Such legislation is very common. On
occasions of great disaster by hoo7, or
drouth, or storm in some particular
locality, Congress rarely aver fails to
come to the front with an appropris-
ton for the sufferers. Congress made
large appropriations for the worlds
fair, held at New Orleans in 1884-'5,
and in Philadelphia in 1876. By
what authority was this done 2 These
were gifts; but is there a provision in
the Constitution authorizing a gift
that will not at the same time, and for
the same purpose, authorize a loan :?
Section s of the Constitution de-
clares Chat Congress shall have
power: l.. To lay and collect taxes,
duties, imports and excuses; to pay
the debts and provide for the common
defense and general welfare Of the
United States" 1t is under the
general welfare clause of this Sec
ton that authority is claimed for all
of those acts. Is it for the general
welfare, is the paramount question in
considering the constitutionality of an
act of Congress making appropriations
5ro n any of these things. Of this Con
gress is the sole Judge. 1 agree that
some of it's appropriations are difficult
to reconcile with the general welfare.
Pensions or bounties would be hard
to discern as contributing to the wei
fare of all the people, or of the people
of all the States. But Congress in
the nature of things is the Judge in
its legislative conscience. There are
no tests of the general welfare " by
which this judgment of Congress
could be reversed on an appeal to the
cour:s. 1t is a mat er of Judgment
not susceptible Of proof by the legal
rules of evidence.
Let US I'll the analogy between the
United States national banking system
and the proposed Sub Treasury plan
suggested by the Farmers Alliance.
We will start with the deposit of
bonds in the United States Treasury.
In what does this differ from the de.
post by the farmer Of his cotton or
wheat or toSacco in tae United States
"arehouse I? Does the fact that one Is
a paper interest bearing bond make it
more acceptable under the Constitution
than substantial things of intrinsic
value, like the articles named above,
and If so, why? In the one s the
government does lend its money to
the banker to the amount of 90 per
cent. on the face value of the bond at
l per cent. interest, and pays interest
in gold on the deposit. In the other
the government gives its receipt for
80 per cent. of the value of the article
deposited, which receipt is to circulate
as a representative of value, and in
the ands of the last holder may be
surrendered and the deposited article
withdrawn from the warehouse and
sold to the consumer or the manufac.
turer on the payment of l per cent
not as interest, but to defray the ex-
pense incident to the deposit.