Not Yours To Give
Here's a link to Davey Crockett's Speech about the government's involvement in charity. It's an easy read and tells a good story. The fact that the speech had the desired results makes it more important. This speech should be read aloud in Congress everyday in place of whatever prayers are offered publicly.
http://www.house.gov/paul/nytg.htm
Nathan
posted by Nathanael D Snow @ 1:09 PM
2 comments
2 Comments:
Why didn't you give us a summary, so that we don't actually have to read it.
Ha ha ha. It's just four pages long. And I gave a summary Wednesday night. But, "to 'splain, no, is no time to 'splain, to sum up" (Princess Bride):
One day in the House of Representatives a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer.
Crockett makes a speech saying that congress doesn't have the right to give taxpayers' money to charity. He proposes each representative give one week's salary of their own money to the benefit of the widow instead.
The bill does not pass, but neither do the representatives pony up.
A friend asks him why he gave the speech. He tells a story of how after voting for a similar bill years before he was electioneering and he met a constituient who had heard about it. The voter said,
"You gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in the honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case you are not the man to represent me."
Crockett replies, "certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve its suffering women and children."
And here I really can't sum up. You must simply read what this voter said. And I would have any person running for office to sign a contract stating that they had read and agreed with every word of this little monologue and would act accordingly before I would vote for them.
"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. But that has nothing with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be entrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means.
What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the government. So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he.
If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right to give at 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 and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other. '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. If twice as many houses had been burned in this country as in Georgetown, neither you nor any other member of Congress would have Thought of appropriating a dollar for our relief. There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the sufferers by contributing each one week's pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of wealthy men around Washington who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life.'
"The congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports be true, some of them spend not very creditably; and the people about Washington, no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from necessity of giving what was not yours to give. 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.'
"'So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. 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. I have no doubt you acted honestly, but that does not make it any better, except as far as you are personally concerned, and you see that I cannot vote for you.'
Crockett apologizes and promises not to do it again.
The voter says he will only trust him if Crockett promises to own up to the mistake in his stump speech from then on.
The voter's name turns out to Horatio Bunce, an influential and respected man in the district. He saves Crockett's reelection campaign.
Really, you should read the whole thing. Google "Not Yours to Give" or "Horatio Bunce" and see how important this anecdote is.
Nathan
Post a Comment
<< Home