« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »
stitution, and the powers actually granted must be such as are expressly given, or given by necessary implication. “And again, in Gibbons vs. Ogden (9 Whea
ton, 1), Chief-Justice Marshall says:
This instrument contains an enumeration of the powers expressly granted by the people to their Government.
“And Mr. Justice Story, who certainly is not authority for any State-right view of the Constitution, uses this language in his Commentaries on the Constitution:
That powers to be implied must be bona fide, appropriate to the end in view.
“The same doctrine is stated by Chief-Justice Chase in the great case of Hepburn and Griswold, known as the legal-tender case; and he sanctions the doctrine stated by the authorities already quoted.
“If this be the mode of interpretation, and I think it must be the true canon of construction, then the question arises, Where is the express grant of power to appropriate for this Centennial? Gentlemen admit there is no express grant of power; then where in this appropriation for the Centennial is there to be found the essential element of its being a necessary incident to any express grant of power? What granted power needs to be carried out by the passage of this bill?
“There is no need for it in order to carry out any granted power, and none has been or can be shown. Then the bill must be rejected or the oath we have taken violated. I ask gentlemen to observe that oath. I took it in good faith, and I hope all gentlemen did :
I swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States, and that I take this oath without any mental reservation—
“That is, I suppose, a mental reservation to break it—
“That is, without any intention to evade it. I meant what I said; and if this House meant what it said, as I have no doubt it did, how can its members vote for the passage of a bill for which there is no express grant of power, and when the bill is not an essential incident to the carrying into execution of any express grant of power?
“When Mr. Clay, I think, was discussing the bank bill in 1811, he is reported to have said that, whenever any one was in want of some clause of the Constitution on which a doubtful bill might light and rest, he referred it to the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the States. Now, nobody has claimed that this centennial bill regulates commerce with foreign nations or among the States, that I have heard. The truth is, I may say in passing, that of all the powers granted by the Constitution, that power alone was granted by the convention which adopted it nemene contradicente, so clear were the framers of the Constitution that that power,
in the sense in which they granted it, did not involve any danger to the reserved powers of the States.” Mr. Hoar, of Massachusetts, said: “I have been very much interested in the very able and clear statement made by the gentleman, and 1 desire to call his attention to one point, with the view of receiving his answer to it, which I can state in a single sentence. When the Constitution of the United States delegated to Congress certain national powers, among them the taking of a national attitude toward foreign nations, did it not intend that such expendi. tures for national dignity as are usual to nations wielding those powers should be made by Congress? As, for instance, the ornament. ing the national Capitol with a dome costing $10,000,000; the building of a tomb for General Washington, which Congress undertook to do at one time; the receiving of Lafayette, the national benefactor, in a national ship, and providing for the expense of inviting him and bringing him here. Are not those expendi. tures within reasonable and suitable limits contained in the grant of the national powers, to the exercise of which with suitable dignity those expenditures are necessary? And is not the celebration of the centennial once in a hundred years one of its properly attendant and implied expenditures?” Mr. Tucker: “I am very much pleased, sir, to respond, as I shall do before I am done fully, I think, to the elaborate question of the gentleman from Massachusetts. “Now, sir, there is one element which is wanting as a basis for the whole hypothesis of the gentleman from Massachusetts. I would say that it is a substantive element, except that it is an adjective; it is the word “national' I want the learned gentleman from Massachusetts to point out to me—and I will give him until night to do so—the word “national' in respect to power or in respect to anything else in the Constitution of the United States.” Mr. Hoar: “The powers to levy war, to conclude peace, to establish commerce, imply a nation in every line where they are granted." Mr. Tucker: “If that, Mr. Chairman, is what the gentleman calls national power, very well. I understand him now. The gentle. man quotes the power to levy war. By-theby, there is no such power. There is the power to ‘declare’ war (I desire to be a little accurate, and the power ‘to raise and support armies." Mr. Hoar: “We can levy war after we declare it.” Mr. Tucker: “That word “levy, however, is not in the Constitution. The Constitution also gives the power to Congress— To provide and maintain a navy; to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces. “That covers the whole of the question which gentlemen have sometimes asked me: ‘How can you fire a salute?’ It can be doue under the power of Congress—
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces. “Now, sir, in reference to the power to pass this bill, there is one phrase which is greatly relied upon; and if I can show that it fails to give constitutionality to this bill, then I think I will have cleared up all difficulties. Gentlemen have said that there is power given to Congress “to provide for the common defense and general welfare.' I deny it in toto. I say there is no grant of power to provide for the common defense and general welfare. The language of the Constitution in connection with that phrase, its origin and adoption into the Constitution, and the debates in the Federal Convention, show conclusively that they indicate the object of the previously delegated tax-power, and are not in themselves a substantive grant of power. This has been shown by what was said by my able friend from Pennsylvania (Mr. Cochrane). He showed that Judge Story had interpreted the clause as if the words “in order” were inserted before the words “to pay debts,” etc.; so that the clause would read: Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises [in order] to o the debts and provide for the common defense an #. eral welfare; . . . but all duties, imposts, and exdises shall be uniform throughout the United States. -Constitution United States, Article I., § 8. “That this is the true interpretation will appear from the grammatical construction of the sentence. It consists of three branches: the first as to laying and collecting, the second as to paying debts and providing for common desense and general welfare, and the third a qualification on the power in the first branch of the sentence. To suppose the learned men of the convention would have interjected as a substantive power the words in the second branch of the sentence, and then in the third branch qualified the first branch, would be to attribute to them a lamentable lack of knowledge of the rules of grammar and of style. “Hence the usual and generally-conceded onstruction of the second clause has been that it is attached to the first clause as a definition of the objects of the tax-power, limiting its use only to such objects, and that the second clause cannot be fairly held to contain a new and substantive grant of power. “Now, sir, it is a very curious fact (and I beg to call the attention of the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts to it) that this clause, “to provide for the common defense and general welfare,” finds its origin in a Constitution which confessedly gave so little power * Congress that Congress had to beg from the States additional grants of power in order to Perpetuate its own frail and precarious existence, “You will find that in three clauses of the Articles of Confederation, not adopted finally until March, 1781, and which were in force thereafter until the adoption of the Federal
Constitution in 1789, the words are to be found. Thus, in the eighth article, the following words occur: “All charges of war, and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defense or general welfare . . . . shall be defrayed out of a common treasury, which shall be supplied by the several States,” etc. The same phrase occurs in two other clauses of the same instrument. “Now, sir, if these words give the power which gentlemen claim they give under the present Constitution, how was there any lack of power in the old Congress of the Confederation? And yet its lack of power was so notorious, so inconvenient, and so alarming, that Congress came again and again to the very footstool of the States and begged for additional grants of power to save the Confederation from perishing. “When, afterward, these words were transferred from the Articles of Confederation into the Federal Constitution, they were brought with their original meaning, which cannot be changed without violating well-settled principles of interpretation and the dictates of common-sense. In their original use they did not define a grant, but the objects of a previous grant of power; and, when put into the present Constitution in a like connection to the same power as when originally used, we are bound to refer them to the previous grant of the tax-power as merely defining the object and purpose of its delegation, and they cannot now be interpreted to constitute a separate and distinct grant of power. “Now, it is a remarkable fact that, in the convention which formed the Constitution, Alexander Hamilton, whose early fate was a cause of lament at least to one portion of the old Federal party, proposed, as Mr. Madison reports it, that Congress should have power ‘to pass all laws which they shall judge necessary to the common defense and general welfare of the Union.” I hope the advocates of this measure will hear this; for the proposition made by Hamilton in reference to the powers of Congress, and which was rejected, is your only show of authority to pass this centennial appropriation. Mr. Hamilton proposed that Congress should have power to pass all laws which they should judge necessary to the common defense and general welfare of the United States. Now suppose that proposition had been adopted in that form. But, instead of being adopted, it was rejected, and the present formal enumeration of powers was inserted in lieu of this general and sweeping clause. “If this Congress has the sweeping power to provide for the general welfare and to do whatever it may judge to be necessary therefor, this Government becomes at once vested with unlimited power. We may then throw up our hands and never say again that Congress has not the power to do anything it pleases. I know no other limitation, no other breakwater to the unrestricted authority of Congress to absorb all the reserved powers of the States and to become a centralized despotism, if such a construction of these words be admitted. My only hope to arrest consolidation is in limiting the power of Congress to the specifications of the grants contained in the Federal Constitution. “But gentlemen, despairing of finding any particular clause of the Constitution for their purpose, have asked me how we could build this beautiful dome to the Capitol. Now, if gentlemen will read the Constitution of the United States, and study it, and, as the PrayerBook says, ‘inwardly digest it,” they will find this provision in the sixteenth clause of the eighth section of Article I. of the Constitution: To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of p.s. and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the Government of the United states, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the Legislature of the State in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards, and other needful bui wngs.
“Thus there is a clear implication of a grant of power to erect a Capitol. But gentlemen say, ‘Why did you not build a brick building? Would not that have done?' Well, I might say, Why did you not build it of weatherboards? Somebody else might say, ‘Why did you not build merely a log-house? Why do you not live like the old patriarchs, in tents? What is the use of having any house at all?' I answer that the power being given to build ‘needful buildings,’ the discretion as to what is the necessity of the Government is of course left to Congress. And in reference to that I will answer, as poor old Lear did to his miserable daughters when they undertook by reasoning to deprive him of his royal dignities and reduce him to dependence upon the mercies of “a thankless child:" * Oh, reason not the need: . . . Allow not Nature more than Nature needs, Man's life is cheap as beast's.”
“And when gentlemen ask how these pictures can come here, I will say to them that if they will read the later decisions of the higher courts of Great Britain they will find that the doctrine held by those courts is that pictures and statuary, intended as parts of the general F. of a building, are a part of the realty.
ictures are fixtures, and are as much needed to a public building as a cornice, a portico, or a dome. That is the way in which the picture of George Washington is constitutionally a part of this Capitol—this needful building.
“Somebody has asked about embassadors; I think somebody on the street the other day asked me the question. I do not know that it has appeared in this debate. What authority was there for expenditures for the entertainment of the Chinese and Japanese embassadors? I will say to gentlemen that if they will read the Constitution carefully they will
find that power is given in it to the President of the United States “to receive public ministers and embassadors.”—Constitution United States, Article II., § 3. “Then the power is given to Congress— To pass all laws necessary and proper to carry into execution the foregoing powers— “That is, the powers granted to Congress— and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States or in any department or officer thereof. “So that the power of Congress to passalaw necessary and proper for giving the President authority to receive embassadors in an appropriate way is clearly within the very letter of the Constitution. “Now I look at another point. One gentleman asked about the exploration of the Polar Sea, the observation of the transit of Venus, and the support of a Government Observatory. These things are clearly done under the power to provide and maintain a navy, because the provision and maintenance of a navy require that these scientific matters as to the geography of the earth and the celestial mechanism, having obvious relation to the navigation of the great deep, may be known, in order that our navy may traverse the seas and oceans of the world safely to itself, and as a security to our vast foreign and home commerce. The exploration of the Polar Sea is legitimate either under the power to provide and maintain a navy or the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations. Wherever the enterprise of American seamen carries them, there must be safety for the Navy of the United States, and it is the business of the Government to protect the American shipper the world over from the dangers incident to those who do business on the great waters. “I wish to remind my Democratic friends that this Government has no mission ercept to execute its powers and perform its duties under and in subjection to the supreme law of the land, the Constitution of the country. In that connection my friend referred to grants of land for educational purposes. I think the gentleman will find that wherever that has been a conceded power, it has been upon the ground that as the public lands were granted or have been acquired for the common benefit of all the States of the Union, and as the duty is devolved upon Congress of forming out of these Territories new States that they may come into the Union, it is essential that in building up these nurseries of States—in training that foster-child of the Government, the Territory, until it shall be a full-grown State, it is essential that there should be grants of public lands to the Territory for purposes of education; and those grants of public lands being made in the State wherein they lie, I suppose it was considered fair on the part of the Government that there should be grants of land to the old States for like purposes, in order that thus the donations of land should be made among the old and new States for the equal and common benefit of all. That is my answer to that question. “I have done with the constitutional question, as my time will not allow me to go into it further. I put it upon this ground: Show methe into power of how this bill is necessary and proper to carry into effect an expressly granted power, or before God and under my oath I cannot vote for it. “Talk about sentimental patriotism! I have as much of it as most people, but my sentimental patriotism will not allow me to trifle with the solemn obligation I took at the Speaker's desk when I was sworn in as a member of this House. “Now, sir, I put it on another ground—and I begmy Democratic friends around me to hear me, and I beg the gentlemen on the Republican side of this Chamber to hear me—I put it on the ground that the only limit to this growing corruption in the country is a limitation upon the power of the Government. If you would advertise to this country that any scheme that a plausible committee or commission can induce gentlemen to strain themselves up to the point of believing to be for the general welfare is open to the exercise of power by this Congress, I tell you, sir, it will be an advertisement for jobbers; and the lobby will be so filled that its agents “will push us from our stools,' and drive its members from this House. But whenever it comes to that, the people of the country will say, ‘Thank God, they shall not sit here any longer!' Whenever you claim Power to do anything which you may judge for the general welfare, you proclaim to the country and to all its schemers and jobbers this invitation: ‘Have any of you any scheme you think for the general welfare? If so, bring it forward!' There will be no lack of them, is, and the lobbyists out there will corrupt this body if it is corruptible. Your Credits Mobiliers, your railroad schemes, and all your other thousand plans for plunder upon the pubhe Treasury and upon the tax-paying and the tax-burdened people of the land, will be without remedy. There is only one remedy, and that is to limit power; but there is no limitation of power, if this Government can do anything it pleases upon the ground of ‘general welfare.’” Mr. Springer, of Illinois said: “I move to amend the bill by striking out the words ‘share equally with the holders of the said centennial stock, and a like percentage thereon be paid into the Treasury of the United States as may he paid to the holders of the said stock,' and inserting in lieu thereof the words ‘to be paid in full into the Treasury of the United States ore any dividend or percentage of the profits *all be paid to the holders of said stock.’ “The object of this amendment is to provide that, if there should be a dividend when this *hibition is over, the United States shall come * as a preferred creditor, instead of sharing
equally, as this bill now provides, with the stockholders of this corporation. In other words, the United States having made a voluntary contribution, as this bill provides, we shall be first entitled to have the people's money back before any of it goes into the pockets of private individuals as a dividend. “Before I sit down I desire to say that, while I am anxious for the full success of this centennial exhibition, at the same time I regard this bill as simply a proposition to place in the treasury of the finance board $1,500,000 to be divided among the stockholders after this exhibition is completed. If we pass this bill, they will have $1,500,000 more to divide; if we do not pass it, they will have $1,500,000 less. “We have farmed out this exhibition to a corporation which is rich enough to pay its own way, and is to receive all the advantages and receipts of the exhibition.” The bill having been reported from the Committee of the Whole, the Speaker said: “The first question is on the amendment of the gentleman from Illinois.” The question being put on the amendment, it was agreed to. The Speaker: “The question is next on the amendment of the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Kasson).” The Clerk read as follows: Add to the bill the following: Sec. 2. That the money by this act appropriated shall be paid to the treasurer of the centennial board of finance, only after he and the president of the board shall execute a bond in the sum of $500,000 to the United States, with sufficient security, to be approved by the Secretary of the Treasury, for the safe-keeping and faithful disbursement of the sum hereby appropriated.
The amendment was agreed to.
The bill, as amended, was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time; and being engrossed, it was accordingly read the third time. l The question was taken, and resulted as folows:
YEAs—Messrs. Adams, George A. Bagley, William H. Baker, Ballou, Banks, o Barnum, Bass, Blaine, Blair, Bliss, Bradley, William R. Brown. Burleigh, Cason, Caswell, Chapin, Chittenden, Clymer, §. Crounse, Cutler, fanford, Darrall, Davy, Denison, Dobbins, Dunnell, Eames, Egbert, Ellis, Farwell, Forney, Foster, Freeman, Frost, Frye, Garfield, Gause, Gibson, Hale, Hancock, Haralson, Hardenbergh, Benjamin W. Harris, Harrison, Hathorn, Abram stiowitt, Hili, floor, hogs, #. Hubbell, Hunter, Hurlbut, Hyman, Jenks, Thomas L. Jones, Kasson, Kelley, Ketchum, King, Lamar, George M. Landers, Lane, Lapham Lawrence, Leavenworth, Levy, Luttrell, E mundow. Mr. Mackey, Levi A. Mackey, Magoon,. Maish, MacDougall, McCrary, Mediis.’Meado, Miller, Money, Monroe, Morey, Morgan, Mutchler, Nash, Norton, O'Brien, oliver 6 Noll. Page, william A. Philip. Pierce. Pi. er, Plaisted, Platt, Powell, Pratt, Purman, Rainey,
andall, Reagan John Reilly, John Robbins, William M. Robins, oberts, Miles Ross, Sobieski Ross, Sampson, Schleicher, Schumaker, Seelye, Sinnickson, Slemons, Smalls, A. Herr Smith, Strait, Stowell, Swann, Tarbox, feese, Thompson, Throckmorton, Martin I. Townsend, Washington Townsend, Wan Worhes, Waddell, Alexander S. Wallace, John
W. Wallace, Walls, Ward, Warren, Erastus Wells, G. Wiley Wells, wheeler, Whitehouse, whiting. Wigginton, Andrew Williams, Alpheus S. Williams, Charles G. Williams, Wilshire, Alan Wood, Jr., Fernando Wood, Woodburn, Woodworth, and Young —146.
NAYs—Messrs. Ainsworth, Anderson, Ashe, Atkins, Bagby, John H. Bagley, Jr., John H. Baker, Beebe, Boii, Blackburn, Bond, Blount, Boone, Brad! ford, Bright, John Young Brown, Buckner, ñoratio Q. Burchard, Samuel D. Burchard, Cabell, John H. Caldwell, William P. Caldwell, o: Candler, Cannon, Cate, Caulfield. John B. Clarke of Kentucky, John B. Clark jr., of Missouri, Cochrane, Collins, Conger, Cook, Cowan, Cox, Culberson, Davis, De Bolt, Dibrell, Douglas, Durham, Eden, Evans, Faulkner, Felton, Fort, 'Franklin Fuller, Glover, Goode, Goodin, Gunter, Andrew H. Hamilton, Henry R. Harris, John T. Harris, Hartridge, Hartzell, Hatcher, Haymond, Hendee, Henderson, Henkle, Hereford, Goldsmith W. Hewitt, Holman, Hooker, Hoskins, House, Hunton, Hurd, Frank Jones, Joyce, Kehr, Kimball, Knott, Franklin inn. ders, 'Lewis Lord, Lynde, McFarland, McMahon, Metcalfe, Miliiken, Mills. Morrison, Nemi, New, fneips, John F. Philips, 'Poppicton. Potter, Rea. Rice, Riddle, Robinson, Rusk, Savage, Sayler, Scales. Sheikley, Singleton, William E. Smith, Southard, Sparks, Springer, o Stevenson, Stone, Terry,
omas, Thornburgh, Tucker, Tufts, Turney, John
L. Vance, Robert B. Wance, Waldron, Gilbert C. Waiko, wiing, Walsh, Whitthorne, wike, wii. lard, James Williams, James D. Williams, William #. Williams, willis. Benjamin wilson, James wi. son, and Yeates—130.
Norvorno–Messrs. Durand, Ely, Robert Hamilton, Hays, Lynch, Odell, Packer, Parsons, Payne, James B. Reilly, Starkweather, Charles C. B. Walk! er, White, and Jeremiah N. Williams–14.
So the bill was passed.
In the Senate, the bill was considered on
The Chief Clerk: “The proposed amendment is to strike out the preamble and all after the enacting clause of the bill, and in lieu thereof to insert:
That it be recommended to the people of the United States to assemble on the 4th of July next, in such numbers and in such manner as may be convenient, in their respective cities, towns, villages, neighborhoods, or wherever they may be, publicly to testify their joy at the one hundredth return of that auspicious day by suitable eulogies, orations, and discourses, or by public prayers and such religious exercises and ceremonies as may be appropriate to the occasion and sanctioned by their own consciences.”
The Secretary proceeded to call the roll. The result was announced, as follows:
YEAs—Messrs. Alcorn, Cooper, Eaton, Goldthwaite, Kernan, Key, McCreery, Stevenson, Thurman, Wadleigh, White, and Withers—12.
NAYs–Messrs. Allison, Anthony, Bayard, Booth, Boutwell, Bruce, Cameron of Pennsylvania, Cameron of Wisconsin, Caperton, Clayton, Conkling, Conover, Cragin, Dawes, Dennis, Dorsey, Edmunds, English, Ferry, Frelinghuysen, Hamlin, Harvey, Hitchcock, Ingalls, Jones of Florida, Jones of Nevada, McDonald, McMillan, Maxey, 'Mitchell, Morrill of Maine, Morriji of vermont Morton, Oglesby, Paddock, Patterson, Randolph Ransom, Robertson, Sargeant, Spencer, Wallace, west, Windom, and Wright—45.
Absent—Messrs. Bogy, Burnside, Christiancy,
Cockrell, Davis, Gordon, Hamilton, Howe, John. ston, Kelly, Logan, Merrimon, Norwood, Saulsbury, and Sherman—15.
So the amendment was rejected. The bill was reported to the Senate without amendment. The President pro tempore: “The question is on the passage of the body of the bill.” The Secretary proceeded to call the roll. The result was announced, as follows:
YEAs—Messrs. Allison, Anthony, Bayard, Boutwell, Cameron of fennsylvania, Caperton, Clayton, Conkling, Conover, Cragin, Dawes, Dennis, Dorsey, Edmunds, Ferry, Frelinghuysen, Hamlin, Hai. vey, Hitchcock, Ingalls, Jones of Florida, Jones of Nevada, Kelly, Logan, McDonald, McMillan, Maxey, Mitchell, Morrill of Maine. Morriñ of vermont, Morton, Ögiesby, Paddock, Patterson, Randolph, Ransom, Robertson, Sargeant, Spencer, Wallace, and Windom—41.
NAYs--Messrs. Alcorn, Cooper, Eaton, Goldthwaite, Hamilton, Howe, Kerman, Key, McCreery, Merrimon, Stevenson, Thurman, Wadleigh, Whyte, and Withers—15.
Absent—Messrs. Bogy, Booth, Bruce, Burnside, Cameron of Wisconsin, Christiancy, Cockrell, Davis, English, Gordon, Johnston, Norwood, Samsory, Sherman, West, and Wright—16.
So the bill was passed.
The President pro tempore: “The question is next on the passage of the preamble.”
The question, being put, was decided in the affirmative, there being, on a division, yeas 37, nays 16.
In the House, on March 27th, the following bill to redeem fractional currency was reported from the Committee on Appropriations:
A Bill to F. for a deficiency in the Printing and Engraving Bureau in the Treasury Department, and for the issue of silver coin of the United States in place of fac. tional currency. Be it enacted, etc., That there be and hereby is appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the sum of $48,000, to provide for engraving, printing, and other expenses of making and issuing United States notes. Sec. 2. That the Secretary of the Treasury is hereby directed to issue silver coins of the United States of the denomination of ten, twenty, twentyfive, and fifty cents, of standard value, in redemption of an equal amount of fractional currency, whether the same be now in the Treasury awaiting redemption, or wherever it may be presented for redemption; and the Secretary of the Treasury may, under regulations of the Treasury Department, provide for such redemption and issue by substitution at the regular sub-Treasuries and public depositories of the United States, until the whole amount of fractional currency outstanding shall be redeemed. Notwithstanding several amendments were adopted in the House and Senate, the only ones retained on the final passage were as follows: The word “whether,” in section 2, was changed to “whenever,” and the following was added to seetion 2: And all fractional currency redeemed under this act shall be held to be a part of the Sinking-Fund, provided for by existing law, the interest to be com: puted thereon, as in the case of bonds redeemed under the acts relating to the Sinking-Fund.
On June 10th, Mr. Cox, from the Commit.