taxes: may they not be limited to take effect some time after the passage of the law? Congress may institute inferior courts: would such an act be void, because its operation was to commence from a future day? void because it was not inconvenient and absurd? Run your eye along the whole list of powers which are given to the federal legislature, and you will find no countenance for the doctrine which would require that, at the very moment when their will is pronounced, the object which they are empowered to effect should be instantly executed. The power of making treaties, too, although given to another depository, is supposed to be pursued, although the convention with a foreign state may take effect from a future day. There is nothing plausible in the assertion which denies to Congress the power of admitting states by an act which shall not go into operation for some time after its passage. The house would see, in his subsequent observations, the importance of determining whether Congress had the constitutional right of admitting states by a prospective law. He need not say that this question of right was distinct from that of expediency.
Bankrupt Bill.
House of Representatives, March 12, 1822.
Mr. BUCHANAN, (of Pennsylvania.) It has been urged that, as the powers of the Constitution gave to Congress the power of passing a bankrupt law, we are bound to put that power into practical operation, and not to suffer it to remain dormant.
In answer to this argument I would reply, that power and duty are very different in their nature. Power is optional; duty is imperative. The language of power is, that you may; that of duty, you must. The Constitution has, in the same section and in the same terms, given to Congress the power to declare war, to borrow money, to raise and support armies, &c. Will any gentleman, however, undertake to say we are under an obligation to give life and energy to these powers, by bringing them into action? Will it be contended, because we possess the power of declaring war and of borrowing money, that we are under a moral obligation to embroil ourselves with foreign powers, or load the country with a national debt? Should any individual act upon the principle, that it is his duty to do every thing which he has the legal power of doing, he would soon make himself a fit citizen for a madhouse.
Power, whether vested in Congress or in an individual, necessarily implies the power of exercising the right of a sound discretion. The Constitution was intended not only for us, and for those who have gone before us, but for generations yet to come. It has vested in Congress ample powers, to be called into action whenever, in their sound discretion, they believe the interest or the happiness of the people require their exertion. We are, therefore, left to exercise our judgment on this subject, entirely untrammeled by any constitutional injunction.
On the Constitutionality of the Tariff.
Senate, April, 1824.
Mr. HAYNE. Will gentlemen suffer me to ask them to point out to me, if they can, the power which this government possesses to adopt a system for the avowed purpose of encouraging particular branches of industry? The power to declare war may involve the right of bringing into existence the means of national defence. But to tell us we have a right
