the writings-2-第11章

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！



canal　is；　but　to　Louisiana　and　New　York；　where　it　is　not。　　In

other　transactions　Illinois　will；　of　course；　have　her　share；　and

perhaps　the　larger　share　too；　of　the　benefits　of　the　canal；　but

this　instance　of　the　sugar　clearly　shows　that　the　benefits　of　an

improvement　are　by　no　means　confined　to　the　particular　locality

of　the　improvement　itself。　　The　just　conclusion　from　all　this　is

that　if　the　nation　refuse　to　make　improvements　of　the　more

general　kind　because　their　benefits　may　be　somewhat　local；　a

State　may　for　the　same　reason　refuse　to　make　an　improvement　of　a

local　kind　because　its　benefits　may　be　somewhat　general。　　A　State

may　well　say　to　the　nation；　〃If　you　will　do　nothing　for　me；　I

will　do　nothing　for　you。〃　　Thus　it　is　seen　that　if　this　argument

of　〃inequality〃　is　sufficient　anywhere；　it　is　sufficient

everywhere；　and　puts　an　end　to　improvements　altogether。　　I　hope

and　believe　that　if　both　the　nation　and　the　States　would；　in　good

faith；　in　their　respective　spheres　do　what　they　could　in　the　way

of　improvements；　what　of　inequality　might　be　produced　in　one

place　might　be　compensated　in　another；　and　the　sum　of　the　whole

might　not　be　very　unequal。



But　suppose；　after　all；　there　should　be　some　degree　of

inequality。　　Inequality　is　certainly　never　to　be　embraced　for　its

own　sake；　but　is　every　good　thing　to　be　discarded　which　may　be

inseparably　connected　with　some　degree　of　it？　　If　so；　we　must

discard　all　government。　　This　Capitol　is　built　at　the　public

expense；　for　the　public　benefit；　but　does　any　one　doubt　that　it

is　of　some　peculiar　local　advantage　to　the　property…holders　and

business　people　of　Washington？　　Shall　we　remove　it　for　this

reason？　　And　if　so；　where　shall　we　set　it　down；　and　be　free　from

the　difficulty？　　To　make　sure　of　our　object；　shall　we　locate　it

nowhere；　and　have　Congress　hereafter　to　hold　its　sessions；　as　the

loafer　lodged；　〃in　spots　about〃？　　I　make　no　allusion　to　the

present　President　when　I　say　there　are　few　stronger　cases　in　this

world　of　〃burden　to　the　many　and　benefit　to　the　few；〃　of

〃inequality；〃　than　the　Presidency　itself　is　by　some　thought　to

be。　　An　honest　laborer　digs　coal　at　about　seventy　cents　a　day；

while　the　President　digs　abstractions　at　about　seventy　dollars　a

day。　　The　coal　is　clearly　worth　more　than　the　abstractions；　and

yet　what　a　monstrous　inequality　in　the　prices！　　Does　the

President；　for　this　reason；　propose　to　abolish　the　Presidency？

He　does　not；　and　he　ought　not。　　The　true　rule；　in　determining　to

embrace　or　reject　anything；　is　not　whether　it　have　any　evil　in

it；　but　whether　it　have　more　of　evil　than　of　good。　　There　are　few

things　wholly　evil　or　wholly　good。　　Almost　everything；　especially

of　government　policy；　is　an　inseparable　compound　of　the　two；　so

that　our　best　judgment　of　the　preponderance　between　them　is

continually　demanded。　　On　this　principle　the　President；　his

friends；　and　the　world　generally　act　on　most　subjects。　　Why　not

apply　it；　then；　upon　this　question？　　Why；　as　to　improvements；

magnify　the　evil；　and　stoutly　refuse　to　see　any　good　in　them？



Mr。　Chairman；　on　the　third　position　of　the　message　the

constitutional　questionI　have　not　much　to　say。　　Being　the　man　I

am；　and　speaking；　where　I　do；　I　feel　that　in　any　attempt　at　an

original　constitutional　argument　I　should　not　be　and　ought　not　to

be　listened　to　patiently。　　The　ablest　and　the　best　of　men　have

gone　over　the　whole　ground　long　ago。　　I　shall　attempt　but　little

more　than　a　brief　notice　of　what　some　of　them　have　said。　　In

relation　to　Mr。　Jefferson's　views；　I　read　from　Mr。　Polk's　veto

message：



〃President　Jefferson；　in　his　message　to　Congress　in　1806；

recommended　an　amendment　of　the　Constitution；　with　a　view　to

apply　an　anticipated　surplus　in　the　treasury　'to　the　great

purposes　of　the　public　education；　roads；　rivers；　canals；　and　such

other　objects　of　public　improvement　as　it　may　be　thought　proper

to　add　to　the　constitutional　enumeration　of　the　federal　powers'；

and　he　adds：　'I　suppose　an　amendment　to　the　Constitution；　by

consent　of　the　States；　necessary；　because　the　objects　now

recommended　are　not　among　those　enumerated　in　the　Constitution；

and　to　which　it　permits　the　public　moneys　to　be　applied。'　　In

1825；　he　repeated　in　his　published　letters　the　opinion　that　no

such　power　has　been　conferred　upon　Congress。〃



I　introduce　this　not　to　controvert　just　now　the　constitutional

opinion；　but　to　show　that；　on　the　question　of　expediency；　Mr。

Jefferson's　opinion　was　against　the　present　President；　that　this

opinion　of　Mr。　Jefferson；　in　one　branch　at　least；　is　in　the　hands

of　Mr。　Polk　like　McFingal's　gun〃bears　wide　and　kicks　the　owner

over。〃



But　to　the　constitutional　question。　　In　1826　Chancellor　Kent

first　published　his　Commentaries　on　American　law。　　He　devoted　a

portion　of　one　of　the　lectures　to　the　question　of　the　authority

of　Congress　to　appropriate　public　moneys　for　internal

improvements。　　He　mentions　that　the　subject　had　never　been

brought　under　judicial　consideration；　and　proceeds　to　give　a

brief　summary　of　the　discussion　it　had　undergone　between　the

legislative　and　executive　branches　of　the　government。　　He　shows

that　the　legislative　branch　had　usually　been　for；　and　the

executive　against；　the　power；　till　the　period　of　Mr。　J。Q。　Adams's

administration；　at　which　point　he　considers　the　executive

influence　as　withdrawn　from　opposition；　and　added　to　the　support

of　the　power。　　In　1844　the　chancellor　published　a　new　edition　of

his　Commentaries；　in　which　he　adds　some　notes　of　what　had

transpired　on　the　question　since　1826。　　I　have　not　time　to　read

the　original　text　on　the　notes；　but　the　whole　may　be　found　on

page　267；　and　the　two　or　three　following　pages；　of　the　first

volume　of　the　edition　of　1844。　　As　to　what　Chancellor　Kent　seems

to　consider　the　sum　of　the　whole；　I　read　from　one　of　the　notes：



〃Mr。　Justice　Story；　in　his　Commentaries　on　the　Constitution　of

the　United　States；　Vol。　II。；　pp。　429…440；　and　again　pp。　519…538；

has　stated　at　large　the　arguments　for　and　against　the　proposition

that　Congress　have　a　constitutional　authority　to　lay　taxes　and　to

apply　the　power　to　regulate　commerce　as　a　means　directly　to

encourage　and　protect　domestic　manufactures；　and　without　giving

any　opinion　of　his　own　on　the　contested　doctrine；　he　has　left　the

reader　to　draw　his　own　conclusions。　　I　should　think；　however；

from　the　arguments　as　stated；　that　every　mind　which　has　taken　no

part　in　the　discussion；　and　felt　no　prejudice　or　territorial　bias

on　either　side　of　the　question；　would　deem　the　arguments　in　favor

of　the　Congressional　power　vastly　superior。〃



It　will　be　seen　that　in　this　extract　the　power　to　make

improvements　is　not　directly　mentioned；　but　by　examining　the

context；　both　of　Kent　and　Story；　it　will　be　seen　that　the　power

mentioned　in　the　extract　and　the　power　to　make　improvements　are

regarded　as　identical。　　It　is　not　to　be　denied　that　many　great

and　good　men　have　been　against　the　power；　but　it　is　insisted　that

quite　as　many；　as　great　and　as　good；　have　been　for　it；　and　it　is

shown　that；　on　a　full　survey　of　the　whole；　Chancellor　Kent　was　of

opinion　that　the　arguments　of　the　latter　were　vastly　superior。

This　is　but　the　opinion　of　a　man；　but　who　was　that　man？　　He　was

one　of　the　ablest　and　most　learned　lawyers　of　his　age；　or　of　any

age。　　It　is　no　disparagement　to　Mr。　Polk；　nor　indeed　to　any　one

who　devotes　much　time　to　politics；　to　be　placed　far　behind

Chancellor　Kent　as　a　lawyer。　　His　attitude　was　most　favorable　to

correct　conclusions。　　He　wrote　coolly；　and　in　retirement。　　He　was

struggling　to　rear　a　durable　monument　of　fame；　and　he　well　knew

that　truth　and　thoroughly　sound　reasoning　were　the　only　sure

foundations。　　Can　the　party　opinion　of　a　party　President　on　a　law

question；　as　this　purely　is；　be　at　all　compared　or　set　in

opposition　to　that　of　such　a　man；　in　such　an　attitude；　as

Chancellor　Kent？　　This　constitutional　question　will　probably

never　be　better　settled　than　it　is；　until　it　shall　pass　under

judicial　consideration；　but　I　do　think　no　man　who　is　clear　on　the

questions　of　expediency　need　feel　his　conscience　much　pricked

upon　this。



Mr。　Chairman；　the　President　seems　to　think　that　enough　may　be

done；　in　the　way　of　improvements；　by　means　of　tonnage　duties

under　State　authority；　with　the　consent　of　the　General

Government。　　Now　I　suppose　this　matter　of　tonnage　duties　is　well

enough　in　its　own　sphere。　　I　suppose　it　may　be　efficient；　and

perhaps　sufficient；　to　make　slight　improvements　and　repairs　in

harbors　already　in　use　and　not　much　out　of　repair。　　But　if　I　have

any　correct　general　idea　of　it；　it　must　be　wholly　inefficient　for

any　general　beneficent　purposes　of　improvement。　　I　know　very

little；　or　rather　nothing　at　all；　of　the　practical　matter　of

levying　and　collecting　tonnage　duties；　but　I　suppose　one　of　its

principles　must　be　to　lay　a　duty　for　the　improvement　of　any

particular　harbor　upon　the　tonnage　coming　into　that　harbor；　to　do

otherwiseto　collect　money　in　one　harbor；　to　be　expended　on

improvements　in　anotherwould　be　an　extremely　aggravated　form　of

that　inequality　which　the　President　so　much　deprecates。　　If　I　be

right　in　this；　how　could　we　make　any　entirely　new　improvement　by

means　of　tonnage　duties？　　How　make　a　road；　a　canal；　or　clear　a

greatly　obstructed　river？　　The　idea　that　we　could　involves　the

same　absurdity　as　the　Irish　bull　about　the　new　boots。　　〃I　shall

niver　git　'em　on；〃　says　Patrick；　〃till　I　wear　'em　a　day　or　two；

and　stretch　'em　a　little。〃　　We　shall　never　make　a　canal　by

tonnage　duties　until　it　shall　already　have　been　made　awhile；　so

the　tonnage　can　get　into　it。



After　all；　the　President　concludes　that　possibly　there　may　be

some　great　objects　of　improvement　which　cannot　be　effected　by

tonnage　duties；　and　which　it　therefore　may　be　expedient　for　the

General　Government　to　take　in　hand。　　Accordingly　he　suggests；　in

case　any　such　be　discovered；　the　propriety　of　amending　the

Constitution。　　Amend　it　for　what？　　If；　like　Mr。　Jefferson；　the

President　thought　improvements　expedient；　but　not　constitutional；

it　would　be　natural　enough　for　him　to　recommend　such　an

amendment。　　But　hear　what　he　says　in　this　very　message：



〃In　view　of　these　portentous　consequences；　I　cannot　but　think

that　this　course　of　legislation　should　be　arrested；　even　were

there　nothing　to　forbid　it　in　the　fundamental　laws　of　our　Union。〃



For　what；　then；　would　he　have　the　Constitution　amended？　　With　him

it　is　a　proposition　to　remove　one　impediment　merely　to　be　met　by

others　which；　in　his　opinion；　cannot　be　removed；　to　enable

Congress　to　do　what；　in　his　opinion；　they　ought　not　to　do　if　they

could。



Here　Mr。　Meade　of　Virginia　inquired　if　Mr。　Lincoln　understood　the

President　to　be　opposed；　on　grounds　of　expediency；　to　any　and

every　improvement。



Mr。　Lincoln　answered：　In　the　very　part　of　his　message　of　which　I

am　speaking；　I　understand　him　as　g