authorized to appoint a board of commissioners to have charge of the enterprise, and also to invite other nations to participate. The national government was expressly held free from expense or financial liability; and by another act, June 1, 1872, a board of finance was incorporated to raise the required capital. By joint resolution, June 5, 1874, the president was authorized to invite other nations to take part in the celebration." The federal government further patronized the undertaking by erecting a building in which to illustrate the functions and workings of its different departments. A tract of more than two hundred acres, a part of Fairmount Park in Philadelphia, was placed by the city at the disposal of the exposition authorities.

From its inception the enterprise encountered difficulties; previous experience with world's fairs little guided the uncertain steps of its promotors; and the financial panic of 1873 caused many subscriptions to be cancelled, and threatened, if it continued, to reduce materially the number of visitors. Thirty-nine nations accepted the invitation to join in the exhibition. Some erected buildings and others asked for housing at the expense of the finance board. Being now threatened with a lack of space in the six buildings contemplated, the managers hastily constructed additional buildings and annexes, the expense of which, added to the four and one-half millions spent on the main buildings, exhausted

1 U. S. Statutes at Large, XVII., 203. 2 Ibid,, XVIII., 53.

their resources. They appealed to Congress to save the project and caused a debate in both House and Senate on the power of Congress to make an appropriation for this purpose, in which the survivors of strict construction made a last stand. The debate marked the passing of constitutional quibbling and showed the helplessness of old doctrines before the new demands of national pride.

Advocates of the proposition to advance one and a half million dollars to the Centennial Commission could find no precedent except the acts whereby appropriations were given for American representation in the London Exhibition of 1851, and the later Paris Exposition and Vienna Exhibition. The total of seven hundred thousand dollars spent for this purpose seemed to have excited little opposition or alarm at the time; but the Democratic opponents of the proposed relief measure for the Centennial board were now insistent that Congress had no power under the constitution to warrant the proposed appropriation. Its defenders waived the letter of the constitution, claiming that the enterprise was entitled to national support because it was national in its inception and organization. One speaker asked: “Where did Congress derive the power to embellish and decorate the grounds and buildings of the Government? Where did it derive the power to purchase works of art which adorn these Halls and add to their attractiveness? Where did it derive the power to purchase the magnificent library of which we

7

boast? Where did it derive the power to fit out expeditions to explore the polar seas and to travel to foreign countries to observe the transit of Venus? Where did it derive the power to appropriate money on three different occasions to promote international exhibitions held in other countries? Where did it derive the power to encourage art, to promote science, to advance practical and useful industry, to maintain an Agricultural Department, or a horticultural garden, a National Observatory, or a Signal corps?"

1

Many of the acts thus appealed to had been passed by Democratic Congresses, thus placing that party upon the defensive. One member illustrated in his argument the microscopic care with which the strict constructionists had been compelled to search each line of the constitution to justify the action which national growth and necessity demanded from time to time. He refused to accept the easy doctrine of "implied powers" and sought an explicit clause for each statute. The right to fire a salute in the army and navy he justified by the provision of the constitution authorizing Congress to raise armies and support a navy; the erection of the ornamental dome to the Capitol was warranted by the phrase "and other needful buildings"; the purchase of works of art for adorning the building was extenuated by court decisions that pictures were included as part of a building; the appropriations for the

Cong. Record, 44 Cong., 1 Sess., 479.

entertainment of foreign ambassadors was vindicated under the power "to receive public ministers and ambassadors”; the polar expedition and that sent to observe the transit of Venus were grounded on the power to maintain a navy; and grants of public lands for educational purposes were warranted by the power given to Congress to "dispose of" the territory and other property of the United States.1 Henry Clay was jokingly quoted as declaring in the bank bill debate in 1811,2 that when any one was in search of ground for a doubtful action he went to the clause in the constitution giving Congress the right to regulate commerce. Yet some of the justifications named above were almost as farfetched.

Advocates of the proposed measure wished to rise superior to constitutional quibbles such as supposedly went out of fashion in the Civil War, and to ground the appropriation on the right to save the national honor and to promote the national pride. Instances were cited of the appropriation for constructing a tomb for Washington and the money spent in entertaining Lafayette in 1824-each of which could be justified only by the patriotic impulse of the people. "Many things have been done," confessed one speaker, "perhaps not within the strict letter of the Constitution; but we have high authority for the saying, 'The letter killeth, the spirit giveth life.' The power which saved a nation's Cong. Record, 44 Cong., 1 Sess., 511, 512. 1 Ibid., 510.

2

life can save a nation's honor." 1 The appeal to the nation's honor was successful in overcoming whatever of narrow-constructionism, once voiced by Jefferson, by Madison, and by John Taylor of Caroline, survived the fire of the Civil War. "Expediency" had replaced "constitutionality" as the criterion. The bill was passed and became a law February 16, 1876, and the financial success of the project was no longer in doubt. In addition to this loan, the government expended on the exposition, by erecting a building, by making exhibits, and by admitting foreign exhibits free of duty, about six hundred thousand dollars more.4

3

Thus relieved of financial difficulties, the Centennial Exhibition was opened in May, 1876, with elaborate ceremonies and maintained until November of the same year. Twenty-six states of the Union and many foreign nations erected characteristic buildings for the housing of their exhibits, in several of which structures native building material was employed exclusively. Some of the principal trades and manufactures also erected buildings in which they showed their products or processes.

The Exhibition had a marked and unexpected effect in stimulating travel. Preparations to carry

1 Cong. Record, 44 Cong., 1 Sess., 479.

'See Channing, Jeffersonian System (Am. Nation, XII.), chap. vi. 3 U. S. Statutes at Large, XIX., 3.

▲ Exec. Docs., 44 Cong., 3 Sess., No. 74, p. 13.

* Centennial Exhibiton of 1876, Report, IV.; Harper's Weekly, XX., 422; cf. Dunning, Reconstruction (Am. Nation, XXII.), 292.