|
|
ther objection. It is well known that the policy of the
framers of the constitution was to limit the revenue to ne-
cessary expenditures; and the idea of a source of "perpe-
tual revenue, " was particularly obnoxious; Accumulations
of wealth in the treasury of the central government, has
ever been considered as dangerous to the rights of the in-
dividual States. Taxes on imposts are sometimes necessa-
ry, even when not absolutely required to support the go-
vernment. The power of "regulating: commerce" with
foreign nations, is utterly inefficient, unless this power is
connected with it. Negotiation failing — retaliatory im-
posts or war, are the only effectual means by which the
"regulation of foreign commerce" can be effected; taxation,
then, in such a case, might be an ample fund for general
revenue. What, then, would become of the fund accruing
from the sales of the. public lands. His Excellency states,
that this fund cannot be diverted from its direction, "to
paying the debts and expenses of the Union, " cannot be
applied to any other use or purpose whatever; distribution
among the States is particularly objected to. A surplus,
then, consequently accumulates, which, agreeably to the
opinions of His Excellency, collated above, cannot be dis-
tributed or disposed of. How, then, should we be rid of.
the acknowledged evil, of a central overflowing treasury?
By no other means, your committee conceive, than deple-
tions of the national treasury by defalcations of its officers.
It may be said that this argument is an argument to policy,
and not to the rights asserted by the States. Admit it; but
your committee deem it not so highly of the wisdom of this
generation, as to believe that motives and considerations,
visible to them, were hidden and obscured from their fore-
fathers. We deny, and challenge the production of autho-
rity to show, that prior to the adoption of the federal con-
stitution, the funds arising from the public lands, were ever
contemplated as a means of defraying the civil expenses of
the general government. All contemporary history; the terms
of the deeds of cession; the declarations and instructions
of the States, whose limits did not Include the public lands;
the treaty of peace with England, ceding to the States, as
such, speak one common voice of denial of such applica-
tion, and assert the claims of the States, as the cestui que
trusts of the common fund, acquired by common efforts,
purchased by common blood and treasure, subject primari-
ly to the liquidation of the common debt, "incurred in ac-
quiring and maintaining that territory, and to no other gene-
ral purpose or use whatsoever. "
|
|
|
