SPEECH, UNDER THE FIVE MINUTE RULE, IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, JULY 23D, 1852, ON THE SUBJECT OF RIVER AND HARBOR IMPROVEMENTS.
I OFFER the following amendment:
For removing obstructions from the mouth of Pascagoula river, in the state of Mississippi, $60,000.
Gentlemen belonging to the Committee on Commerce say that appropriations of this kind have not been inserted in the bill because they have not been asked for. I sent to that committee a petition for this very appropriation, and not only has it been left out, but no sort of notice has been taken of it.
I was proceeding to say, that the members of the Committee on Commerce were wholly mistaken, as far as the proposed appropriation was concerned, when they said that it had been left out of the bill because it was not asked for. More than once, petitions for this appropriation have gone to that committee through the ordinary channels. I have not, it is true, gone and besought the members of the committee in person, to put into the bill this or any other appropriation. I have neither begged nor bargained for that which I have a right to demand in the name of my constituents. My constituents petitioned, as was their right; and I presented their petition, as was my duty. And I took it for granted, that the members of the Committee on Commerce, like the members of the other committees of this House, would discharge their duty. Still, I find this bill reported, and no notice taken of those petitions. I find, also, and it is that of which I especially complain, that the state which I have the honor in part to represent upon this floor—a state which supplies to this government one-seventh part of its exports, and, by consequence, one-seventh part of its imports, and which, therefore, supplies one-seventh part of the whole revenue of the government derived from imports—has not had appropriated to it in this bill one single solitary dollar; not one farthing. Sir, the state of Mississippi has been entirely overlooked in the preparation of this bill.
A VOICE. So has Virginia.
Mr. BROWN. No, I think Virginia has not been entirely omitted. She has something, but Mississippi has not one dollar from the commencement to the conclusion of the bill. This is the only item that has been asked for, and it was due to that state that it should have been granted; or if not granted, the petitions should have had at least a decent and respectful consideration. Why is this? Why are our petitions thus trampled under foot and spit upon? Is it because the Mississippi delegation come here subscribing to the doctrine of a strict construction of the Constitution? Are you going to establish the principle in this country, that money is to be doled out to those only who believe that a liberal construction of the Constitution is right? and are you going to refuse appropriations to those who take a different view of their duty to the Constitution? Are the liberal constructionists-those who believe the government may and ought to make these appropriations, about to band together, seize the public money and appropriate it to themselves, and will they deny to those who dispute their power to appropriate all participation in a common fund? If that be the principle upon which you are going to act, why, let us understand it. I understand that the treasure of the nation is the common property of the nation, and is not to be distributed to the states according to the opinions of their representatives on a constitutional question. We hear all around us that gentlemen have not been able to get their items of appropriations put into this bill, because they themselves believe that such appropriations are unconstitutional. Sir, have we fallen upon times like these, that gentlemen band themselves together to seize upon the national treasure and appropriate it to their own use, denying all share to those who chance not to agree with them in their construction of the constitutional power? If that is the doctrine, let us understand it.
I have been falsely charged with being a disunionist; but if it be true that gentlemen who believe the national treasury is subject to the unrestricted legislation of Congress, may seize the common fund, divide it among themselves, and deny all participation to those who will not justify the division, then, sir, I say it would be as honorable to consort with highwaymen as to live in such a Union. When the surplus revenue was distributed, were Virginia and Mississippi denied their distributive share because they opposed the distribution? No; if you have so much respect for our opinions as not to give us our share of the money because we think you ought not to use it in this way, then I pray you carry your respect a little further. We believe that you have no power to tax us as you do under the protective policy. Will you so far respect our opinions as to withhold taxation? No, sir; you will impose taxation whatever may be our opinions; and you do it without stint or mercy. It is only when you come to disburse the money that you are seized with these violent fits of respect for our opinions. If you cannot appropriate money in my district out of respect for my constitutional opinions on the subject of these appropriations, then carry your respect a little further, and quit taxing my constituents until I am satisfied that you are doing it according to the Constitution. If you may take money out of my district without my consent, you may put it back without my consent. If we are to have a partial system of distribution, then let us have a partial system of taxation. If my state is to be thus excluded from the appropriations, let her be stricken from the tax list. Cease to draw money from her, and she relinquishes for ever all claim upon the national treasury. But if the hand that gathers is thrust into her pocket, she calls it robbery if you close against her the hand that distributes.
No comments:
Post a Comment