In a matter of taxation why should
States agree to an alteration proposed with the very object of
increasing their proportion of the national burden? But unless such
States will agree - unless Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and New York
will consent to put their own necks into the yoke - direct taxation
cannot be levied on them in a manner available for national
purposes. I do believe that Rhode Island and Massachusetts at
present possess a patriotism sufficient for such an act. But the
mode of doing the work will create disagreement, or at any rate,
tedious delay and difficulty. How shall the Constitution be
constitutionally amended while one-third of the States are in
revolt?
In the eighth section of its first article the Constitution gives a
list of the duties which Congress shall perform - of things, in
short, which it shall do or shall have power to do: To raise taxes;
to regulate commerce and the naturalization of citizens; to coin
money, and protect it when coined; to establish postal
communication; to make laws for defense of patents and copyrights;
to constitute national courts of law inferior to the Supreme Court;
to punish piracies; to declare war; to raise, pay for, and govern
armies, navies, and militia; and to exercise exclusive legislation
in a certain district which shall contain the seat of government of
the United States, and which is therefore to be regarded as
belonging to the nation at large, and not to any particular State.
This district is now called the District of Columbia. It is
situated on the Potomac, and contains the City of Washington.
Then the ninth section of the same article declares what Congress
shall not do. Certain immigration shall not be prohibited; THE
PRIVILEGE OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS SHALL NOT BE SUSPENDED,
except under certain circumstances; no ex post facto law shall be
passed; no direct tax shall be laid unless in proportion to the
census; no tax shall be laid on exports; no money shall be drawn
from the treasury but by legal appropriation; no title of nobility
shall be granted.
The above are lists or catalogues of the powers which Congress has,
and of the powers which Congress has not - of what Congress may do,
and of what Congress may not do; and having given them thus
seriatim, I may here perhaps be best enabled to say a few words as
to the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in
the United States. It is generally known that this privilege has
been suspended during the existence of the present rebellion very
many times; that this has been done by the Executive, and not by
Congress; and that it is maintained by the Executive and by those
who defend the conduct of the now acting Executive of the United
States that the power of suspending the writ has been given by the
Constitution to the President and not to Congress.
