* IS J < * 1
, 1 . . . . .
Conservative *
THE LOUISIANA ] > UIICIIASK.
[ Written for TIIK CONSKUVATIVB by .TnnieH
Denton Hnncock. ]
It has been customary among a class of
writers in this country to treat the pur
chase of Louisiana by the government of
the United States as a stretch of author
ity , warranted under the constitution
only by the circumstances under which
the purchase was made. As an isolated
* ' case it would matter little ; but wherever
it has been deemed necessary to evade
> or violate the constitution in order to
accomplish a desirable object , the Louis
iana purchase has been made an excuse
and precedent for a construction of the
greatest latitude. These writers seldom
state wherein the purchase was of doubt
ful constitutionality. This has been left
to the imagination ; and as mere broad
statements , without fact or reasons ,
rarely call for or receive answers , this
assertion has become the belief of a large
portion of the people.
I propose to consider the grounds for
this assertion and belief , and their rela
tion to the basic principle upon which
our government was founded.
The constitution is chiefly a grant of
powers to the general government
through its various departments. In the
instrument as originally adopted by the
convention there are but few exceptions
to the powers granted. The first ten
amendments proposed by the then exist
ing congress and submitted to the people
ple along with the body of the constitu
tion comprise exceptions and limitations
to the powers granted in the constitu
tion ; but in all cases , whether in the
body of the constitution or in the
amendments , such exceptions and limi
tations are so clearly stated that there
can be no question as to their meaning.
The general power to make laws is
vested in congress ; and as there is no
power vested in congress to acquire ter
ritory , it is possible that this may have
been the reason that the legal right for
k the acquisition of Louisiana may have
" been doubted and denied and is still
doubted and denied. But there is one
notable exception to this exclusive power
v in congress to make laws. The presi
dent with the advice of the senate is em
powered to conclude treaties , "and all
treaties made under the authority of the
United States , shall be the supreme law
of the laud. " The power thus granted
to the president and senate is without
exception or limitation either as to pur
pose or subject matter. So full are the
T | powersgrauted to congress , subject to the
limitations prescribed , that congress is
not only authorized to exercise the
powers granted , but to make all laws
which may be necessary and proper for
carrying into execution such powers.
For this reason under the power to bor
row money and for that purpose , a law
creating a national bank was declared
valid ; and early in the history of the
government it was decided that in the
acknowledged exercise of its powers , no
department of the government could be
subject to inquiry by any other depart
ment as to the motives or purposes in
volved in its actions. For this reason
laws for the collection of protective tar
iffs were held valid. The supreme court
decided that when such laws produced
revenue , it could not inquire into the
discretionary power vested in congress ;
otherwise that court would be allowed
to usurp despotic power over all the
other departments of the government.
Under the constitution , in its dealings
with other countries the government of
the United States possesses full national
powers the power to declare and carry
on war , the power to regulate commerce
and impose duties on imports , the power
to own and possess territory , the power
to make treaties. Even just wars some
times eventuate in victory and conquest.
Will it be supposed for a moment that
in such a contingency , our government
would not have power by treaty , to ex
act an indemnity either in land or other
property for the expense and suffering
incurred in the war ? Would not the
government have the right to accept
from foreign countries territory by gift ?
Yet in principle such acceptance would
be the same as to acquire it in any other
way by treaty.
Trent leu.
Like other laws , treaties are made to
redress wrongs , secure benefits and pre
vent injuries. With Florida and the
Spanish claims , Louisiana included a
strip of laud stretching from the Atlan
tic coast to and including both sides of
the mouth of the Mississippi river , and
thence in one vast irregular body from
the west bank of the Mississippi to the
Pacific coast. As in similar cases prior
to the final settlement of the continent ,
the claims weie indefinite , the bound
aries unsettled , and on every side there
was room for dispute and conflict. Al
ready conflicts had taken place between
border settlers on either side of an imag
inary line. The commerce of the Missis
sippi had been made subject to annoying
burdens and regulations at New Orleans ,
and in probable emergencies was liable
to be entirely destroyed. Disputes upon
those subjects threatened to bo causes of
war , with the devastation and destruc
tion by which it is always accompanied.
The purchase of Louisiana by treaty
with France in 1808 and the subsequent
purchase of Florida by treaty with Spain
in 1819 gave to our country an unbroken
sea coast from Nova Scotia by the At
lantic ocean to the southern coast of
Florida , and thence by the gulf of Mexico
ice to a point several hundred miles
west of the Mississippi river. By these
treaties our western border was extended
to the Pacific ocean , and the original
area of our country considerably more
than doubled ; and this area has now
been divided into happy , populous and
prosperous states. If any law was over
framed which secured benefits and
averted evils , these treaties may be con
sidered without rivals in these respects.
JcH'orson and His Cabinet.
To this treaty , however , two objec
tions were offered ; and in obed
ience to that quality of the human
mind which compels the wise to hesitate
and doubt when new departures are
made , even President Jefferson , over
whelmed by the immensity of the stake
at issue , was desirous that an amend
ment to the constitution should be
proposed specially covering the objec
tions made. His cabinet , however , were
of the opinion that the treaty was in
full accord with the constitution ; their
opinions dissolved the doubts of the
president , the treaty was presented to
the senate , and by that body ratified
with but a few dissenting voices. In
the light of history and the present
wider knowledge of the scope of the
constitution , it seems incredible how
these doubts could have arisen. It is
easily understood , however , when it is
considered that the division of parties
had resulted from the heated discussions
growing out of the adoption of the con
stitution fear and jealousy of the vast
powers granted to the general govern
ment on the one side , and on the other
side the desire of a government so strong
and imperial as to forever prevent all
the evils which had arisen under the
few and limited powers granted to the
late confederacy. After the adoption of
the constitution , these parties took the
form of those who were in favor of a
strict and those who were in favor of a
liberal construction. The extremes on
the one side , were those who were in
favor of a construction so narrow that
they would have denied to the govern
ment all its legitimate powers , and on
the other side those who were in favor
of a construction so loose that the gov
ernment would have absorbed all the
reserved rights of the states and the
people. They seem to have forgotten
that the constitution was a written in
strument and subject to the common
canons of construction for such instru
ments canons ordained by the simplest
rules of common sense. In the midst of
their conflicting quibbles they fre
quently forgot that the true rule for the
patriotic citizen , is a strict adherence to
the constitution when honestly and
fairly construed by the plain rules of
reason.
Objections.
The first objection to the treaty was
that the power to purchase foreign ter
ritory was not contemplated by mem
bers of the convention which framed
nor the citizens who adopted the consti
tution in short , that they had granted
no special power to purchase and annex
foreign territory. The answrer was
obvious. How was it possible to decide
how many of those who framed and
