LETTER XIV.

District of Columbia. - Exclusive Legislation over it and Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, Dock-yards. Paris. German Diet in a Free City. - Legislative Powers concerning all National Business. - Sophists and Cavillers.

WE come now to the clause which creates a curious little, but very wisely-devised empire.

In accordance with it Congress has

"17. To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over such district (not exceeding ten miles square), as may by cession of particular states and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States; and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state, in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards, and other needful buildings."

This is the origin of the District of Columbia. The desirable independence of the federal government from state, made the erection of such a ten miles square empire necessary, to be governed by Congress. The wisdom of this proviso is so obvious that those versed in politics—that is, the art of organizing society for the ends of justice, were astonished, that the French attempted, so late as 1848, to again establish a national republican government in Paris, where, if not protected by a powerful garrison, it may be at any time overthrown. Without such an arrangement a state, in whose limits Congress would sit, would acquire an undue preponderance. Even in monarchical Germany, the diet, as is called the present show of a national Congress, meets in an independent free city, from the same reasons.

The clause speaks for itself.

Congress is further empowered

"18. To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or office thereof."

By this provision, Congress has the power to put in motion the

different wheels of the government by acts or laws. Without this power, the constitution and its grants would be inoperative. Where this organizing has to stop, may be sometimes doubtful; still no interpretation should obstruct the carrying out of the plans of the constitutional grants. They are sufficiently specified for all practical purposes. Sophists and cavillers must always be put to rest by the authority of the judiciary, because for such men no constitution is conclusive. We have now examined the positive part of the constitution, specifying the business which shall be done by Congress, through the indicated channels. It is imperative for each to fulfill its trust, so that no legislative business may be transferred to the executive or vice versa.

In my next letter we come to the negative part, that is, which prohibits Congress to perform certain business. As simple as this seems to be, yet it required centuries before we arrived at this result; and what is still more remarkable, that, up to this time, a very few agree about what business is national or federal, and what not. Hence the great necessity for every citizen to investigate this subject thoroughly. Meanwhile let us faithfully stick to this constitution and our Union.

LETTER XV.

Interpretation of the Grant. Congress, the Agent of the people, who remain the Proprietors. — Rights of Self-government. — National Bank. Precedents. Shoemaking in Time of War.- Expediency. National Banks in England, France, Russia, Austria, Prussia. - Public Debts. Washington. - Jackson.- Good Temper in Public Affairs. - Pulpit. Ladies.

BEFORE we proceed to the reading of a new section, I will add a few remarks to my last letter. The business entrusted to Congress has been granted or delegated by the people, who remain the original proprietors, while the officers act as their agents. When it is doubtful whether an expedient to carry such a granted business or power be proper or necessary or even constitutional, those who have to remove this doubt should not only consult the words of the constitution, but also the rights of self-government.

There was a time when the federal government under Washington thought it necessary to establish a national bank for the regulation of the finances and collecting the revenues, &c. Some doubted its constitutionality, while others believed the reverse and supported their opinion by referring to the eighteenth clause. Now, banking, by itself, is a private and not a political business, required for the convenience of commerce, not for the realization of justice; still it may be, that at certain times, when the public finances are deranged in consequences of war, such a bank, authorized by the national government, may be necessary and proper for carrying into execution certain treasury or financial measures, and thus far it would be entirely constitutional. Upon all such things time exercises its all powerful influence. A decision in favor of such a bank in time of general distress and paralyzation of business, however, should not be considered as an imperative precedent for all times to come, and the government should part with such an incidental financial auxiliary as soon as possible, because, as before mentioned, governments generally have as little connection with banking, as with farming and shoemaking. But in time of war why should not our government resort to shoemaking for the soldiers too, if there is no other way to get this necessary clothing? If such a case should be the cause of party disputes, and the supreme court decide that the shoemaking by the government be constitutional, would common-sense men set up this decision as a precedent for all time to come, according to which Congress can carry on shoemaking for ever at pleasure? Government itself is a mere expedient, and oft-times an exceedingly inconvenient necessity. If now, at a certain time, people all-wise, and good, and honest, should agree to dispense with all government, and a few voices should object, upon the ground that government was a necessity by precedent, what would common sense say to that? Precedents often rest upon no better grounds than fashions or customs. Disputes must, at a certain time, come to an end. It can not be supposed that the decisions will then be not in harmony with the existing facts, circumstances, and laws. But all those facts and circumstances do not happen exactly a second time again. This is the cause of the mutability of legal decisions and of the short validity of precedents. Peculiar circumstances make a national bank necessary in England, France,

Russia, Austria, and Prussia. There the governments are, to use this expression, living upon debts, for which purpose they use the financiering help of subservient banks, endowed for this purpose with monopolies and privileges.

Such precedents are, of course, of no value for us. Besides such a national bank with us would inevitably interfere with private banking or with the liberty of industry, one of our most precious social rights, which to protect, and not to molest, is a chief duty of government and the express aim of our constitution.

Increase of business has, of late, created a necessity for a department of the interior with a secretary at its head. A postmaster-general has been from the beginning of the government at the head of the postoffice department. The main channels have been for the same reason subdivided, as the treasury into sub-treasuries. But the origin of this extensive political machinery is in a few lines of the eighth section, whose simplicity and precision makes the constitution easily applicable to time and cir

The grant to raise armies will, I am afraid, remain necessary for all time, as long as men have strong passions for violence and evil, and are destitute of self-control. Still the manner of executing this grant may, in a few years, entirely differ from that of our time. The less detail there is in a constitution about such grants the better. To cavil about incidental expedients is gratuitous and unbecoming if only everything is fairly and honestly managed. In this regard, public affairs do not differ from private affairs. Washington was as right in his time, when approving a national bank, as Jackson was later, when disapproving it. To make party capital out of such incidents is wrong.

We are in need of a good temper in our political affairs. Where shall we get it when even the pulpit is turned into a party hot-iron blast? I am not mistaken when I claim it from the American women. I wish they may, with their faculty of quick perception, consider themselves the social pacificators by the grace of God and the laws of nature.

4

LETTER XVI.

Migration and Importation of Persons. — Importation of Slaves declared Piracy. — Slave Labor, disposing of, in the States. - Habeas Corpus. Rebellion. Invasion. — Middle Ages. — Rogues. — Charles I.— Attainder and "Ex-Post-Facto" Bills. - Habeas Pursam.

LET us pursue now our reading.

SECTION IX.

“1. The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight; but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation not exceeding ten dollars for each person."

WHEN the first negative proviso was written down, there were in all the states, prior colonies, bound laborers or slaves kept. The framers of the constitution were, by their constituents, and especially the northern states, induced to insert into the constitution that Congress, in consequence of the policy over the oceans, should not prohibit the importation of slaves before 1808, in order to gain time to dispose of their slaves. After this time, Congress saw fit to prohibit the same under the penalty of piracy. This law is at present in force. Within the several states Congress has nothing to forbid in this regard. The states where slaves are kept have tolerated the trade with them. It is the only way to dispose of bound labor force, and make it useful where needed. Of course this disposing of bound laborers is an incident of the system. It is the business of the slave states to make the needful regulations in this regard. In forbidding the importation of Africans, Congress has cut the Gordian knot, and parted at once with all the matter in regard to the foreign slave-trade. In regard to immigration of free persons, Congress has no power to interfere, it being the natural right of man to migrate, and because it belongs to the states to legislate on this subject. For this very reason there is no passport system legal in the Union, and every one is at liberty to wander and migrate as he pleases, also with his