the message at the commencement of the next session, would lay down some clear and intelligible maxims by which the administration was to be governed on the subject of internal improvement. they termed a wasteful and extravagant expenditure of public monies for such objects; and they formed so large a part of that party, that President Jackson found himself compelled in some measure to yield to their views, and after leaving the community more than a year in doubt, whether he intended to act according to the principles avowed by him when in the Senate of the United propriations for building lightThe canal bill was declared to panies incorporated in the respecto be rejected, simply on the tive States. States, or upon the principle of reform promised in the administration of the Government, he promulgated his views upon this question in his message to Congress rejecting the Maysville and Lexington road bill. In this message, he declared Congress to have no power to construct or promote any works of internal improvement within the limits of a State, provided the jurisdiction of the territory occupied by them be necessary for their preservation and use. In aid of works undertaken by State authority, he thought Congress had acquired the authority by the practical construction given to the Constitution, to appropriate money, provided such works were of a national character and the claim of jurisdiction were surrendered. 'The term national, was too indefinite in its application to afford a very exact criterion of the limits within which the President intended to confine the powers of Congress on this point, and as two bills of a similar character to those rejected, were retained by him for deliberate examination at the close of the first session of the twentyfirst Congress, a lively expectation was entertained, that One of these bills was to authorise a subscription for stock in the Louisville and Portland canal company; the other made ap houses, light-boats, beacons, and monuments, placing buoys, and for improving harbors, and directing surveys. Bills of a similar character to the former, had been sanctioned by both his immediate predecessors; and the light-house bill did not differ in principle from the bill in relation to the same subjects, which had been annually passed since the organisation of the government, and gradually extended to the objects enumerated in the title, as the developing wants of the country had increased, when no obstacle had been interposed on account of the condition of the public finances. These bills were now returned to Congress, and the President, in his message, stated the reasons which induced him to withhold his assent to them. After objecting to the multiplication of light-houses, and the want of system in establishing them, the message states that an assent would have been given to a bill making direct appropriations for such objects; but that in the bill returned, there were various appropriations for surveys of a local character, and that on that account the bill was returned. the opinions of the President, was followed up by the introduction of several bills for the internal improvement of the country. ground of its being inexpedient This intimation on the part of for the Government to become the friends of internal improveinterested in the stock of compa- ment of their determination to nies incorporated to construct act on that question in defiance of roads and canals. All improvements effected by public funds, he thought, should be open to the enjoyment of all the people free of tolls, and that if the government were allowed to become interested in the stock of road and canal companies, it would ultimately change the character of the Government by too great an extension of the Federal powers. The message then went on to state the objections of the President to the power of making internal improvements as exercised by the national Government; and recommended the distribution of the surplus funds in the national treasury among the States, in proportion to the number of their representatives, to be applied by them to objects of internal improvement. The proposition was generally regarded as evidence of the hostility of the President to the whole policy; and that part of his message being referred to the committee on internal improvement, a report was brought in by Mr Hemphill, on the 10th of February, 1831, strongly and pointedly condemning the views contained in the message, and concluding with a resolution, that it is expedient for the General Government to continue to prosecute internal improvements by direct appropriations of money, or by subscriptions for stock in com The first of these bills was one making appropriations for the improvement of harbors, and removing obstructions in rivers, which was reported to the House on the 18th of January, and taken up for consideration on the 17th of February, in the committee of the whole. The next day, when the bill was taken up in the House, Mr Lea rose and said, that he wished to know the sense of the House on this measure. He wished to know what was meant by this sort of external internal improvement. He wished to know how high up a river it was considered constitutional to go, without coming in conflict with the objectionable principle, and how far the House could carry a distinction, which he himself could not see nor approve. He could see no difference between appropriations for harbors and the mouths of rivers, and appropriations for the improvement of the interior of the country. He, therefore, asked for the yeas and nay's on the engrossment of this bill. Mr Carson said he felt that on the subject of internal improvement it was perfectly useless to say a word. The bill proposed various objects of expenditure for harbors, &c. What evidence was The question was taken on the third reading of the bill, and carried, 113 to 45. there of their necessity-not to constitutional. He could not vote speak of their constitutionality. for the bill. But he knew of no evidence, that the improvements were needed, admitting their legality. He went through all the items to show that many of them were unworthy of legislation, and some of them contemptible. He protested against them, and said that the items for his own State should not seduce him to vote for the bill. On the 19th of February, the bill was read a third time and the question being on its passage, Mr Carson rose and said, the liberties of the country were by this bill put up for sale, and that for one he would not be bribed to vote for it. Messrs Irvin and Whittlesey defended the appropriation in reference to the waters of Lake Erie, showing their importance to the commerce of the West, the great declaration-that in a bill of the extent of the commerce of the lake; the deficiency of natural harbors on it, and the necessity of forming them, &c. Mr Sill also defended at some length the appropriation for the harbor of Erie. Mr McDuffie begged the friends of the bill not to consume the time of the House in making speeches against an opposition so untenable, that it could not certainly gain thirty votes. The bill embraced no new objects, it embraced such only as former appropriations authorised, or standing laws required, and every item had been examined and approved by a committee. He hoped, therefore, that the debate would be lest entirely to the enemies of the bill. Mr Carson replied, and reiterated his objections to the bill, on the score of expediency and principle. Mr Drayton said that most of the items were proper, but there were some which he deemed un Mr Barringer said he was sorry to hear such language from his colleague. This was a strange most usual and customary character-to promote the commerce and revenue of the countrywhich had been regularly provided for every year, without anybody's dreaming, that it was a violation of the Constitution to hear it proclaimed now that it was selling the liberties of the country! The principle, Mr Barringer said, had never been denied, that where the commerce of the country could be facilitated or increased, and the revenue derived therefrom was received exclusively by the General Government, that it was within the province of the Government to make the improvement; and this was strictly and peculiarly the case with harbors, and the mouths of rivers, where obstructions impeded or endangered the navigation. This was a species of improvement, which it had never been contended devolved on the States themselves. They had been executed by the General Government from the beginning of the Government; at least such had been the action of Congress ever since he had been here, and the action, he believed, of those who had gone before us. North Carolina had petitioned for the improvement of Roanoke inlet. This object was in no way different from the objects in this bill. North Carolina had petitioned Congress for the improvement of Ocracock and the Cape Fear inlets, and all her delegation had supported the application. It had been frequently before the House, and none of them had discovered that it was unconstitutional; and now, because these objects are embraced in this bill, are we, who vote for it, to be charged with being bought up? He had voted for such a bill every year, when these objects were not included, and he should have voted for it now, if they had been excluded. He protested against such injurious imputations. Mr Carson said, in ancient times the Roman leaders bought up the liberties of the people with the spoils of the conquered provinces: andthis policy of internal improvement and the high-handed tariff were the means with which the liberties of this people were to be bought up. His colleague said he would not defend the constitutionality of the appropriations proposed by this bill: and well he might say so, for he could not defend it. The Constitution has been placed in the hands of empirics of political quacks, who have given it a construction whereby it is swallowing up the liberties of the country. He knew it was in vain to oppose the passage of this bill, and perhaps there was no use in a man's throwing himself into the breach, and receiving in his breast the daggers of all who were in favor of it. He attacked the system, not the motives of gentlemen; but he solemnly believed if this sort of legislation was persisted in, our liberties were gone; and that nothing but the action of the States could save them. Mr Blair, of Tennessee, said that although, for several years past, he had voted in favor of measures of internal improvement, and had seen no reason to change his opinion or his course in that particular, yet he should vote against this bill, because of the arguments by which it had been supported by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr Barringer). For his part, Mr Blair said, he could not see why the mouth of a river should be improved by appropriations of the public money more than its bed; nor why a measure of this description, coming from the committee of commerce, was not as much a measure of internal improvement, as if it had come from the committee of roads and canals. Suppose the appropriations proposed by this bill had been for the improvement of the Ohio river, or for removing obstructions in other streams; would not the gentleman from North Carolina have gone against that measure ? Has he not invariably gone against such appropriations? What, then, shall we see, if we act upon the principles which govern his vote in favor of this bill? Why, Sir, that there is to be a system of appropriations for bays and rivers, for expenditures on tide water, and no appropriations are to be made for the improvement of the interior. It is, therefore, Sir, that I am obliged to turn my back against this bill, after voting for similar measures, for the last eight years. Sir, look at the details of this bill; the State of Ohio is the only one of the Western States for which the smallest appropriation is proposed in it. Suppose I were to call for an appropriation for the improvement of the Coosa river; would the gentleman from North Carolina come out, and say that that appropriation is constitutional. No, Sir, he would not admit its constitutionality, because it is above the mouth of the river, and not immediately connected with foreign commerce. Yes, Sir, I might exhaust my strength here in vain, in showing the importance of the connection of the Coosa and Tennessee rivers; 1 should not get the vote of the gentleman from North Carolina. If the proposition for such an appropriation came from the committee of commerce, indeed then I might, perhaps, get his vote; but not if it came from the committee on internal improvements. Mr Blair repeated that he felt himself called upon to vote against the bill because of its exclusive nature, going to establish a system of providing connected with the commerce of for the improvement of the mouths the nation, and calculated to benof rivers, bays, &c., and neglect- efit that commerce, he deemed ing the whole interior interests of the object legitimate, and he gave the country. He was for improv- it his support. For instance, the ing the means of domestic as well mouth of the Mississippi, one of vered in, the people whom he represented would derive no benefit whatever from the expenditure of public money. He believed this to be as much an internal improvement bill, as any bill of that nature introduced at the present session. Of its constitutionality he had no doubt, but he denied the expediency of thus limiting and partially carrying the principle into effect. Whenever measures should come before the House, which do look to the great interests of the country to those of the country beyond the Alleghany, as well as that on this side of it, his opinion on the subject would be found to be the same now as it always had been. In self-defence, said he, we of the West must vote against such partial appropriations of the public money as are embraced in this bill, or else we shall become but hewers of wood and drawers of water. We shall feel the blessings of government in the burthens which it imposes, and not in the benefits which it confers. as foreign intercourse and commerce. If the exclusive system proposed by this bill was perse Mr Barringer again rose. It had been his practice, he said, to vote for what he deemed just and expedient, no matter by what committee the measure was reported. In regard to the question before the House, he said, his rule was this; that, if he found the object the items of this bill, was important to the commerce of all the great rivers which flow into it, and |