 |
David Hall |
In 1827, at the dawn of American liberalism, Tennessee Rep. Davy Crockett had to correct the notion that the government, even if well-intentioned, was in charge of providing charity or general relief for citizens.
A House bill, supported by the passionate rhetoric of several representatives, was proposed to subsidize the widow of a naval veteran (perhaps the equivalent of "the children" today).
It was expected to pass until opposed by Crockett, who argued that although he personally sympathized with the widow's plight and would privately donate to her cause, Congress had "no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity."
Congressmen, Crockett argued, had full rights as individuals to donate as much subsidy as they wished; but Congress itself had "no right to appropriate a dollar of the public money" for charity.
Crockett argued that the government was not in debt to the soldier who lived long after the war. On the contrary, he said, "We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as a charity ... . I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week's pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks."
Earlier, an adversarial constituent taught Congressman Crockett a timeless and invaluable lesson. Several years earlier Crockett had supported a bill to appropriate $20,000 for relief to Georgetown citizens who had suffered a vicious fire. Crockett felt magnanimous until he returned to his native soil to calculate his opposition for the next election. Nothing new under the sun.
While hosting donor coffees, Crockett ambled over to greet a farmer. The farmer seized the moment, vouched that he had voted for Colonel Crockett previously, and said, "You had better not waste your time or mine. I shall not vote for you again."
Stunned, Crockett inquired, "Why not?" and was told by the farmer that either he did not understand the Constitution, or he was "wanting in the honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case you are not the man to represent me ... your understanding of the Constitution is very different from mine ... the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power and misinterprets it is the more dangerous the more honest he is."
Crockett, of course, pleaded innocence, not recollecting any blatant constitutional violation. The farmer then reminded Crockett of his earlier vote to donate to the "general welfare" of the Georgetown fire victims.
Crockett, at first, attempted to justify his vote by claiming that the amount was trivial and that the treasury could afford it.
The farmer, with even more insight, replied: "It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes ... . while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he. If you have the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion."
Congress, said the farmer, had as much right to give $20 million as $20,000. Horatio Bunce said: "If you have the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all; and, as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity ...
"No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose."
Bunce concluded his tutorial: "The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else.
"Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution . ... It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people."
Once legislators begin to ignore the objectivity of the constitution, where does their "benevolence" end? Why not give to the "general welfare" of every individual?
Farmer Bunce's answer is that it is a precedent fraught with danger - one that unfortunately has been exemplified in this century.
David W. Hall is an author, syndicated columnist and senior fellow at the Kuyper Institute, an online political think tank based in Oak Ridge, and pastor at Covenant Presbyterian Church.
Copyright 1997 The Oak Ridger
A statesman from our commonwealth issued wisdom 170 years ago that would benefit many today.
