Page:Debates in the Several State Conventions, v4.djvu/488

472 Mr. HOPKINSON. I have never contended that there is an absolute indisputable, constitutional obligation on Congress to pass a bankrupt law. but I do contend that it comes so recommended by the Constitution, and by the people who speak in and by that Constitution, that we may not disregard it; that it is our duty to exercise that power, to execute the trust,—unless, on a full and fair investigation of the subject, it shall be unwise, and injurious to the nation, to do so. I do contend that this high and general duty ought not to be dispensed with on doubtful reasons, on hypothetical arguments, drawn altogether from a presumed abuse of the law; much less from an indulgence of old prejudices or local views and interests. It is a great national object of legislation; it should be decided on national principles; it is deeply interesting to a vast and valuable portion of the people of this country; it should, therefore, be considered in relation to those interests, and determined on a fair comparison between the good it will certainly produce to this class, and the evil it may inflict, if any, on the rest of the community. This government is founded on a compromise of interests, and every one has a fair claim to attention and regard.



, January 4, 1819.

Mr. LOWNDES. He thought there was no inconsistency in denying the general power of constructing internal improvements, and yet voting an appropriation for making any road where there should be a temporary encampment, &c. There was, he conceived, no inconsistency between the expressed opinion of the executive respecting the general power, and the conduct of the executive on this subject. The propriety of making specific appropriations for all objects, where it could well be done, he did not deny; but he was also apprehensive that it might be pushed to an Improper extent. All appropriations could not be specific; but, after making them as minute as possible, and limiting the executive to a certain extent, there would be always some discretion left him. It was proper, also, he admitted, where it could be done, to designate and fix the place where the public money is to be applied; but this could not in all cases be done, and he mentioned instances in which this was left by law to the discretion of the executive; and the present was one of those cases in which this must necessarily be done.



, January 21, 1819.

Mr. R. M. JOHNSON, (of Kentucky.) As early as 1787, and farther back, if it were necessary to trace, provisions of the same nature as those now existing were enacted by the venerable Congress of the Confederation. By various statutes, the same provisions had been continued to the present day. The statute gave to the President a discretionary power to employ the forces of the United States, and to call forth the militia to repress Indian hostility; and gave it to him properly on the principles of the Constitution. By the Constitution, the President is made commander-in-chief of the army; and it is made his duty to take care that the laws are executed, to suppress insurrections, and repel invasions; and by the same instrument it is made our duty to provide for calling forth the militia, to be employed in these objects. That power has been exercised