New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1902-10-26
contentious. and by Democrats themselves, mol
than 100 years ago
rr-ur,EESON'S INTERPRETATION

/ +ba Trrftad states" The first opinion officially
Intervening this clause was given by Thomas
! Iafsarson congress" he said. ARE not 10 do
ANYTHING they please. 10 provide for the general
"-aifarat hut only 10 lay taxes for that purpose.
To consider the latter phrase, not as describing
the nurpose of the first, but as giving distinct
go tn5aDandant power TO do any act they
49, hitch might be for the good of the
IIrjor' ,vould render all the preceding and
/ subsequent euumerations of power completely
! useless II would reduce the whole instrument
j to - single phrase that OF instituting Con
| gress with power TO do whatever would be for
the good of the United States; and, as they
/ Womb he the sole judge of the good or evil, it
would also be a power to do whatever evil they
pleased. Certainly, no such universal power
was meant 10 be given theln'
MADISON AND MONROE.
President Madison in a message to Congress
in 1917 refuting the arguments on general
welfare now revived by Senator Hill. said:
such q view of the Constitution would have
the effect of giving to Congress a general
noy-er of legislation instead of the definite AMI
limited ones hitherto understood to belong TO
them, the terms common defence and general
welfare embracing every object and act within
the purview of a Legislative trust
President Monroe in Isl referring TO the
message 20 Congress: IF the clause in ques
ton is not construed merely as an authority TO
aDprOpriate the public moneys, 1t must be OBJ
yious that it conveys power of indefinite and
unlimited extent and that there would be 10
use for the special powers ii would in
effect break down all the barriers between the
States and the general Government. and con-
soIidate the whole under the latter.
And finally Mr.. Justice Story thus expressed
his views: If the clause is construed to he
INDEPENDENT and substantive grant of power. 1t
not only renders wholly unimportant and I'M
necessary the subsequent enumeration of specific
powers. but il plainly extends far beyond them,
and creates a general authority IN congress 10
,pass all laws, which they may deem for the
common defence or general welfare Under such
circumstances. the Constitution would pract-
caIy create unlimited national government,
If general welfare" 10 the only test, and
Congress armed with arbitrary power, the
only Judge why should Congress stop with the
ccal Of Pennsylvania? Why not seize the silver
and gold OF Colorado, the lead IF Missouri, the
baIna~ Why not confscate the tobacco 1elds CT
New England, the cotton plantations " the
South and the wheat and corn belts OF the
West? They are more indispenSa5ly necessary
for the welfare OF the whole American people
than are the anthracite coal mines OF Penn
sylvania.
And New-York. the gateway of the nation
with the commerce OF a continent pouring ever
eastward and outward through our canals and
rivers. our railroads and along our docks
and warehouses; and the imports II world
constantly cbhinS inward. past our "harves,
through our great arteries of tratti". ever on
ward and westward-are not our miles OF
wharVes and warehouses. are not our Centrai
and West Shore and Erie railways are not
cur canals and rivers-al utilities peculiarly
necessary 20 the general welfare IF the Ameri-
can people? Why then should not the national
government invade our borders AM seize and
OF SODOOOO NEWCOMERS he suoordmated 10
the general welfare of SOO00OOD Americans.
To such conhscation of rights TO such nationilt-
cation Of power. TO such utter humiliation OF
municipalities and states, do the general vel
fare" arguments Of Senator Hill irresstibly
lead u.s.
CANNOT TAKE COAL MINES BY EMINENT
DOMAIN
III The national government having no power
To own or operate coal mines, il follows that IT
has no power 10 exercise the rigat of eminent
domain for that purpose. The Constitution
makes no mention whatever Of the right of
eminent domain, hence the national government
has no such express power Moreover ami
HCnt domain is from its nature an implied power
only II is like the power to make war or
levy taxes. great substantive AMI independent
attribute. IL Is never an end Tor which other
powers are exercised. but always means ny
which other objects are accomplished. The
rrht OF -iTinent d1uDin, said the Supreme
Court, can only be exercised by the national
government Ito appropriate lands other
property for its olCn uses and TO enable ii 10
perform its proper functions. II Is a right
belonging 70 sovereignty 10 take private
property for It's orH public uses and not Tor
necessity. which alone is the foundation OF the
right 0l L. s. 800 SD. And through Mr.
Justice Field, the Court again said that the
United States possessed the right Of eminent
domain within the States To take private
property for public uses, lcheH needed 70 trecate
The poWCrS conferred bB the Constitutions" 1t
may acquire such lands as may be required for
The FIJI and efCcfirc frCTciSe Of its pOtrerS."
Ola L s. 531).
But. as we have seen the national govern
ment has no potcer whatever. express or inn
piled, 10 take and operate anthracite coal
mines. Hence any contention that we can eXer-
else eminent domain for that purpose is fall
lacous and the doctrine unconstitutional.
SENATOR HILLS FUNDAMENTAL ERROR
". Senator Hlls fundamental error is in
trihuting to the national government control
publiC utilities which hplOup exclusively n
the States. The sole restriction upon the inter-
nal sovereignty Of the States is found in the
prohibitions of the Federal Constitution (94
L. s, 12A; and the Constitution contains no
prohibition whatever State control of it's
own property and the property Of its citizens.
state governments, therefore, possess all the
cpnmon-laW powers OF acquiring using and
regulating all utilities in the State; the Federal
Government possesses none EXCEPT in specified
instances. And this was distinctly held by the
supreme Court :" +iunn against Illinois and
other famous Granger cases.
NeW-YorI has always asserted. and our
courts have always sustained, the broadest
exercise or state sovereignty over all property
in the State" Early in the century. Chancellor
Walworth, defining the States right Of eminent
domain, said. 1t may be exercised not only
when the public safety but also when the in
terest or even the eXpediency of the State is
concerned" C3 Paige. 80.
And more impressive still are the words Of
Judge Gray. the present Democratic candidate
for the Court Of Appeals. Referring also To
t!e soNFIt!SH powers OF TINS state, he said.
An emiHent dominion OrCr an prOpCrfB in tht
state is incident OF the SOVEREIGN power =.
and The right Of the State TO take the property
Is an absolute and inherent one and further.
Il cannot find I'm the organic law OF the state
nor can ! find upon principle. any restriction
upon the legislative action. other than that It
shall be in the direction Of public utility" Q1T
n. Y. 800.
SENATOR HILLS ERRONEOUS PRECE-
DENTS.
V. Senator Hills precedents considered in de-
tail.