the writings-2-第14节

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！



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　giving　some　vague　expression　in

favor　of　some　possible　objects　of　improvement；　but　in　doing　so　I

understand　him　to　be　directly　on　the　teeth　of　his　own　arguments

in　other　parts　of　it。　　Neither　the　President　nor　any　one　can

possibly　specify　an　improvement　which　shall　not　be　clearly　liable

to　one　or　another　of　the　objections　he　has　urged　on　the　score　of

expediency。　　I　have　shown；　and　might　show　again；　that　no　workno

objectcan　be　so　general　as　to　dispense　its　benefits　with

precise　equality；　and　this　inequality　is　chief　among　the

〃portentous　consequences〃　for　which　he　declares　that　improvements

should　be　arrested。　　No；　sir。　　When　the　President　intimates　that

something　in　the　way　of　improvements　may　properly　be　done　by　the

General　Government；　he　is　shrinking　from　the　conclusions　to　which

his　own　arguments　would　force　him。　　He　feels　that　the

improvements　of　this　broad　and　goodly　land　are　a　mighty　interest；

and　he　is　unwilling　to　confess　to　the　people；　or　perhaps　to

himself；　that　he　has　built　an　argument　which；　when　pressed　to　its

conclusions；　entirely　annihilates　this　interest。



I　have　already　said　that　no　one　who　is　satisfied　of　the

expediency　of　making　improvements　needs　be　much　uneasy　in　his

conscience　about　its　constitutionality。　　I　wish　now　to　submit　a

few　remarks　on　the　general　proposition　of　amending　the

Constitution。　　As　a　general　rule；　I　think　we　would　much　better

let　it　alone。　　No　slight　occasion　should　tempt　us　to　touch　it。

Better　not　take　the　first　step；　which　may　lead　to　a　habit　of

altering　it。　　Better；　rather；　habituate　ourselves　to　think　of　it

as　unalterable。　　It　can　scarcely　be　made　better　than　it　is。　　New

provisions　would　introduce　new　difficulties；　and　thus　create　and

increase　appetite　for　further　change。　　No；　sir；　let　it　stand　as

it　is。　　New　hands　have　never　touched　it。　　The　men　who　made　it

have　done　their　work；　and　have　passed　away。　　Who　shall　improve　on

what　they　did？



Mr。　Chairman；　for　the　purpose　of　reviewing　this　message　in　the

least　possible　time；　as　well　as　for　the　sake　of　distinctness；　I

have　analyzed　its　arguments　as　well　as　I　could；　and　reduced　them

to　the　propositions　I　have　stated。　　I　have　now　examined　them　in

detail。　　I　wish　to　detain　the　committee　only　a　little　while

longer　with　some　general　remarks　upon　the　subject　of

improvements。　　That　the　subject　is　a　difficult　one；　cannot　be

denied。　　Still　it　is　no　more　difficult　in　Congress　than　in　the

State　Legislatures；　in　the　counties；　or　in　the　smallest　municipal

districts　which　anywhere　exist。　　All　can　recur　to　instances　of

this　difficulty　in　the　case　of　county　roads；　bridges；　and　the

like。　　One　man　is　offended　because　a　road　passes　over　his　land；

and　another　is　offended　because　it　does　not　pass　over　his；　one　is

dissatisfied　because　the　bridge　for　which　he　is　taxed　crosses　the

river　on　a　different　road　from　that　which　leads　from　his　house　to

town；　another　cannot　bear　that　the　county　should　be　got　in　debt

for　these　same　roads　and　bridges；　while　not　a　few　struggle　hard

to　have　roads　located　over　their　lands；　and　then　stoutly　refuse

to　let　them　be　opened　until　they　are　first　paid　the　damages。

Even　between　the　different　wards　and　streets　of　towns　and　cities

we　find　this　same　wrangling　and　difficulty。　　Now　these　are　no

other　than　the　very　difficulties　against　which；　and　out　of　which；

the　President　constructs　his　objections　of　〃inequality；〃

〃speculation；〃　and　〃crushing　the　treasury。〃　　There　is　but　a

single　alternative　about　them：　they　are　sufficient；　or　they　are

not。　　If　sufficient；　they　are　sufficient　out　of　Congress　as　well

as　in　it；　and　there　is　the　end。　　We　must　reject　them　as

insufficient；　or　lie　down　and　do　nothing　by　any　authority。　　Then；

difficulty　though　there　be；　let　us　meet　and　encounter　it。

〃Attempt　the　end；　and　never　stand　to　doubt；　nothing　so　hard；　but

search　will　find　it　out。〃　Determine　that　the　thing　can　and　shall

be　done；　and　then　we　shall　find　the　way。　　The　tendency　to　undue

expansion　is　unquestionably　the　chief　difficulty。



How　to　do　something；　and　still　not　do　too　much；　is　the

desideratum。　　Let　each　contribute　his　mite　in　the　way　of

suggestion。　　The　late　Silas　Wright；　in　a　letter　to　the　Chicago

convention；　contributed　his；　which　was　worth　something；　and　I　now

contribute　mine；　which　may　be　worth　nothing。　　At　all　events；　it

will　mislead　nobody；　and　therefore　will　do　no　harm。　　I　would　not

borrow　money。　　I　am　against　an　overwhelming；　crushing　system。

Suppose　that；　at　each　session；　Congress　shall　first　determine　how

much　money　can；　for　that　year；　be　spared　for　improvements；　then

apportion　that　sum　to　the　most　important　objects。　　So　far　all　is

easy；　but　how　shall　we　determine　which　are　the　most　important？

On　this　question　comes　the　collision　of　interests。　　I　shall　be

slow　to　acknowledge　that　your　harbor　or　your　river　is　more

important　than　mine；　and　vice　versa。　　To　clear　this　difficul