*
r
Published Weekly to The Interest Of T5i* WorMng-JCSaas.
> No, 61.
Was the second legisla-’
ture of Alaska progressive
or retrogressive?
The most important and
Essential clause of the Ro
den Mining Law hhs been
initiated. That was the
section requiring $1C0. worth
of annual labor to be perlor
med on every twenty acres
b? a mining claim, whether
held as an association claim
of 1G0 acres, oi; single claim
of 20 acres.
If there was anything
in the law that was just and
equitable and should have
been retained, it was that
portion of it.
Will the miners of Alas
ka fully realize the injustice
of eight persons holding 160
acres jointly and performing
the same amount Of annual
labor only, that cne person
is obliged to perform on 20
I acres? There is nether jus
tice nor common sense in
such a law. The law as amen
ded is entirely in the inter
jest of the Alaskan land
-grabbers, whose intention is
to continue Ihe'ir holdings
that have been acquired
through the lax laws that
were in vogue prior to the
assembling of the first legis
lature of Alaska.
The mining laws of this
territory are practically the
same as they were ten years
ago. The only rational rem
edytr compel the lancl-gia’)
bing fraternity to relinquish
(Co. tinueJ from la.t week.)
“Corgress t ha!! Lave : ewer to
lay a; 1 c '.met taxor.
i • .. and excises in jrdci to pay
the ckids and provde for tire
com mo a ce: ev.ee a: ml general
wciiV.H' of the Lruled States:
etc."
In other words, tire cc arts de
cided that, under this sub section
congress merely has the town
to raise revenue for the purpose
of carrying out such provisions
the common defense ?nd gen
CTal welfare as are enumerated
ir. other parts of the constitu
tion. They decided that this was
merely an explanatory clause re
citing the purpose of raising rev
enue.
This i3 a horse of a very diffe
rent color.
The controversy over this sub
section began immediately after
the adjournment of the constitu
tional convention of 17S7, which
framed the constitution.
The strict constitutionalists
discovered that under this sub
section the powers of congress
fwere only limited by the express
commands and prohibitions ol
the remainder of the constitution
They sought to put a sweeping
limitation upon these powers by
changing the interpretation of
'this sub-£e< liar*. So they began
to claim that the general welfare
clause was merely a subordinate
clause explaining the purpose tf
raising revenue, in sloe, d of a dis
tinct- power to 1 :*t t,’--.
'-■onera! wcP-'ro.
Among those who rreaicd a.
n separate and distinct power
conferred upon congress,, were
George Mason. Richard Henry
Lee, Patrick Henry, James Mon
roe, John Quincy Adams, and
Andrew Jackson.
Some of these opposed the a
doption of the constitution be
cause they considered this clause
a distinct power and thought it
gave con jfi'ess too much authori
ty.
Before the constitutional con
vention met, Alexander Hamilton
drafted a constitution embodying
his.ideas as to what the constitu
tion ought to contain. He took
his draft to the convention with
him and urged the adoption of
the principles contained in it.
In his draft there was a clause to
the effect that “I he legislature
of the United States shall have
power to pass all laws which they
shall judge necessary to the com
mon defense and general wel
fare of the Union.”
In the consolidation and boil
r.ions which were presented by
the different delegates, it is pre
bable th it the pen bn I welfare
clause vs as ton-owed directly
:en Hamilton's it.
j " i\;.t Hamilton eer. idem! the
j . rai wen are clause to De a
i distinct power is evident from
his argument on the Bank of the
United States fh '7*1.
it is stated in Elliot's Debates
or. the Constitution, Vo!. 4 Pagv
',15, that both Washington and
Hamilton regarded it as a dis
tinct power.
Among' tfie chief executives,
Presidents Jefferson and Madi
son regarded it as a subordinate
clause. Presidents Washington,
Monroe, Quincy Adams and An
drew Jackson regarded it as a
distinct power.
Richard1 Henry Lee was very
much opposed to th*e adoption of
the constitution. In a letter to
Governor Edmund Randolph of
Virginia, he said, “But wh*t is
the power given to this ill ins
tructed body? (meaning con
gress) To judge of what may b<
for the general welfare;and sucb
judgements, when made the act:
of congress, become the supremt
law of the land. This seems i
power coextensive with ever'
loossible object oi utr an legis
r
i lation.
• I n the lie-use oi
i lives, in 111", '■ into
j treated tit is clause ;
i; ov;er v, hen Ite vr.
. the- passage cl c.n
; Rl presenta- J
thy l ickering i
as a ( iitincl |
advocating
ii'iluiiai i m-1
| pro/c-ment Diil.
The bill was passed, and Pics>-j
ident Rif dlson vetoed it on the
ground that 'he general welfare
clause was a subordinate clause.
Judge Story, in his work on
the constitution, enters into an
elaborate argument! in an at
tempt to prove that the clause is
a inordinate, explanatory
clause. ,
If it were true :hat the gene
ral welfare clause is a subordi
nate, clause not confirms any
power upon congress to pro';ids
for the general welfare, then it
would follow that the constitu
tion has been violated every time
a protective tariff law has been
passed, every time new territory
has been acquired, wnen paper
money was made legal tender,
when the weather service and
agricultural department were es
tablished, and in a myriad other
, instances.
If thi« is a subordinate clause,
then the coestitution has been
(Continued on last page.) & '
metarge aiea> ui mm:
ground that they have t
gaily monopolized and
holding, is to compel the :•
to perform the-same amour. :
of annual 'abdr on each and
every acre of their holdi;
that legitimate locators
compelled to do. Andtha.
clearly within the powers
the legislature.
The act of the secc
legitlature of AlasKa, is
protect the land grabbe
arid enable them throw '
lenient laws to hold title lv
large tracts of mining
ground that they are not en
titled to. It is an eft< r; on
the part of die legislators tr
bolster up rascality, as the
members of the legish ire
are well aware of c.\: dig
conditions in tins turrit<
conspiracy attempted by t /
coal barons through thn
gents in Alaska, 10 men
lize the coal Reds, but. .
schemes were frustrated 1 _
tlie timely action of the ' ' •
ernment. If the attention . :
die government was pro;:. -
ly called to what is going > 1
in the placer fields, there
would be another augean
stable to clean out.
Will the returning Leg in
iators explain to their consth
tuents wbV they repealed'
tho law requiring $100.
worth of annual labor on ev
ery 20 acres of a mining
claim.
Subscribe To
Socialist Pfes