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.
SOURCE: M. W. Cluskey, Editor, Speeches,
Messages, and Other Writings of the Hon. Albert G. Brown, A Senator in Congress
from the State of Mississippi, pp. 316-8