198 



CONGKESS, UNITED STATES. 



stitution, and the powers actually granted must be 

 such us are expressly given, or given by necessary 

 implication. 



a 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 Gov- 

 ernment. 



"And Mr. Justice Story, who certainly is 

 not authority for any State-right view of the 

 Constitution, uses this language in his Com- 

 mentaries on the Constitution : 



That powers to be implied must be bona fide, ap- 

 propriate to the end in view. 



" The same doctrine is stated by Chief-Jus- 

 tice Chase in the great case of Hepburn and 

 Griswold, known as the legal-tender case ; and 

 he sanctions the doctrine stated by the authori- 

 ties already quoted. 



" If this be the mode of interpretation, and 

 I think it must be the true canon of construc- 

 tion, then the question arises, Where is the 

 express grant of power to appropriate for this 

 Centennial ? Gentlemen admit there is no ex- 

 press grant of power ; then where in this ap- 

 propriation for the Centennial is there to be 

 found the essential element of its being a neces- 

 sary 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 gen- 

 tlemen 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 

 or evasion. 



" 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 I 

 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 Con- 

 stitution of the United States delegated to Con- 

 gress 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 na- 

 tions 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 Gen- 

 eral Washington, which Congress undertook 

 to do at one time ; the receiving of Lafayette, 

 tlie 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 con- 

 tained 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 hun- 

 dred years one of its properly attendant and 

 implied expenditures ? " 



Mr. Tucker : " 1 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 Massachu- 

 setts 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-the- 

 by, 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 de- 

 clare 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 done 

 under the power of Congress 



