Page images
PDF
EPUB

a

sources.

The court made a distinction between the obligation of a contract and the reinedy to enforce that obligation. The remedy might be modified without impairing the obligation. Hence, a law requiring the imprisonment of an insolvent debtor may be repealed. Imprisonment of an insolvent debtor being no part of the contract, the relief of the prisoner does not impair its obligation.

This construction of the constitution did not extend to statutes of limitation, and laws against usury. Statutes of limitation relate to the remedies furnished in the courts, and establish that certain circumstances shall amount to evidence that a contract has been performed, rather than dispense with its performance. But if a law were passed which should limit to six years the obligation of a contract previously made, there would be little doubt of its unconstitutionality. And so with respect to usury and other laws. So far as they affect contracts already made, they are deemed unconstitutional and void.

The subject of internal improvements by the general government, has received the attention of our statesmen from an early period of the government under the constitution; and has often been elaborately discussed in congress, and in documents emanating from the highest official

In 1807, the attention of the senate was directed to this subject; and in pursuance of a resolution of that body, the secretary of the treasury, Mr. Gallatin, made an able and valuable report. And reports have since been made, at different times, recommending some system of internal improvements.

On the 3d of March, 1817, the day which terminated the 14th congress and Mr. Madison's administration, the bill was returned with the executive veto, on the ground of its unconstitutionality.

Anticipating a revival of the subject of internal improvement, Mr. Monroe, in his first annual message, took occasion to express his opinion in advance, against the right of congress to establish such a system of improvement. Owing, probably, to these executive communications, the subject, for several years, seems to have received little attention from congress.

At the session of 1821-1822, memorials and petitions from several states, soliciting the aid of the general government in works of internal improvement, were presented to congress, and referred to the committee on roads and canals in the house of representatives, who, on the 2d of January, 1822, made a favorable report, desiguating the “pational objects which, in the opinion of the committee, claim the first attention of the government.” With the report was a bill, authorizing the president to cause to be made the necessary surveys, plans, and estimates of these objects, and of such other routes for roads and canals as he might deem of national importance in a commercial or military point of view.

Among the advantages of a well regulated system of internal improvements, the committee, in their report, mention the “regular trade in the exchange of manufactured articles for raw materials," which would take place, and the “nation's receiving within itself the whole benefit usually gained between old and new countries;" it being admitted by the ablest writers on political economy, that the most important branch of the commerce of a nation was that which is carried on between the inhabitants of the towns and those of the country. This trade was attended with less risk than the foreign, which is always liable to be disturbed by war and the fluctuating policy of other natione. The various talents and inclinations of the citizens would be called into activity, and a greater amount of labor insured to the nation; and the ready intercourse between the different parts of the country, would produce an identity of interest and fraternity of feeling, which would strengthen the bonds of the union. The lines of communication contemplated would benefit nearly every state in the union; yet no one or two states had sufficient inducements to furnish the means to construct any one of these works. Objects so important to the welfare and defense of the nation must be made by the general government, or their construction was scarcely to be expected.

In an additional report, (April 26,) the committee expressed the opinion, that the time had arrived when the national improvements ought to be commenced; and pointed out their benefits to the nation. They considered the national resources sufficient at least to commence the surveys and estimates of the more important works, which would require several years; and as our finances should improve, the improvements might be prosecuted to completion. The committee did not enter largely into a discussion of the power of congress on the subject. They believed, however, that the constitution alone could confer the power ; and that the consent of the states was not necessary to its constitutional exercise. If congress had no power to construct roads and canals, and main. tain a control over them, it had no power to purchase lands for the purpose of making them; but it had been the practice of congress to allow to the new states five per cent. of the proceeds of the sales of public lands to be laid out in the construction of roads and canals; three-fifths having been generally expended within the states, and two-fifths under the direction of congress, in making roads leading to the states. The committee mentioned several works authorized during the administrations of Mr. Jefferson and Mr. Madison, one of which was the opening of a road passing through a state, and without asking its consent. And they asked : “ How is it possible to reconcile these acts with the idea that congress possesses no power to construct roads and canals ???

а

The committee, to strengthen their positions, alluded also to the report of the secretary of war, (Mr. Calhoun,) of the 7th of January, 1819, in compliance with a resolution of the house of representatives adopted at the preceding session, instructing him to report at the next session “a plan for the application of such means as are within the

power

of congress for the purpose of opening and constructing such roads and canals as may deserve and require the aid of government, with a view to military operations in time of war;" together with such information on the subject as he might deem material to the objects of the resolution.

The secretary, in his report, did not discuss the constitutional question; his object being chiefly to show the utility of a system of roads and canals, and to designate the several routes in different parts of the union, which he deemed essential to the defense and prosperity of the nation. From the general tenor of the report, however, it has been in. ferred, that he considered the construction of the works therein mentioned within the power of congress. He said: "A judicious system of roads and canals, constructed for the convenience of commerce, and the transportation of the mail only, without any reference to military operations, is itself among the most efficient means for the more complete defense of the United States.' Without adverting to the fact, that the roads and canals which such a system would require, are, with few exceptions, precisely those which would be required for the operations of war, such a system, by consolidating our union, increasing our wealth and fiscal capacity, would add greatly to our resources in war.”

Referring to the difficulties experienced during the late war, from the want of these improvements, he said : “As it is the part of wisdom to profit by experience, so it is of the utmost importance to prevent a recurrence to a similar state of things, by the application of a portion of our means to the construction of such roads and canals as are required

with a view to military operations in time of war, the transportation of the munitions of war,

and the more complete defense of the United States.' And in carrying out the plan, he suggested “as the basis of the system, and the first measure in the plan, that congress should direct such survey and estimate to be made, and the result to be laid before them as soon as practicable.”

The committee did not deem it expedient to recommend the immediate prosecution of any work, and concluded their report with a resolution, declaring it expedient at present only to procure the surveys, plans and estimates proposed by the bill. This bill, however, did not become a law.

At the same session, a bill "for the preservation and repair of the Cumberland road," passed by both houses, was returned to the house of representatives by the president, with the objection " that congress do

a

[ocr errors]

a

a

not possess the power, under the constitution, to pass such a law.” The substance of his objection is contained in the following paragraph :

“ A power to establish turnpikes with gates and tolls, and to enforce the collection of tolls by penalties, implies a power to adopt and execute a complete system of internal improvement. A right to impose duties to be paid by all persons on a certain road, and on horses and carriages, as is done by this bill, involves the right to take the land from the proprietor, on a valuation, and to pass laws for the protection of the road from injuries; and if it exists as to one road, it exists as to any other, and to as many roads as congress may think proper to establish. A right to legislate for one of these purposes, is a right to legislate for the others. It is a complete right of jurisdiction and sovereignty for all the purposes of internal improvement, and not merely the right of applying money, under the power vested in congress to make appropriations, under which power, with the consent of the states through which this road passes, the work was originally commenced, and has been so far executed. I am of opinion that congress do not possess this power; that the states, individually, can not grant it: for, although they may assent to the appropriation of money within their limits for such purposes, they can grant no power of jurisdiction or sovereignty, by special compacts with the United States. This power can be granted only by an amendment to the constitution, and in the mode prescribed by it."

The president did not, in this message, assign the reasons on which his objections were founded, but alluded to a paper expressing his sentiments, which he had occasionally, as his attention had been drawn to the subject, committed to writing. This paper, one of the longest ever communicated to congress, was, on the same day, transmitted to the house. It contains a very elaborate review of the articles of confederation and the constitution, tracing the origin of the state and national governments, and critically examining their respective powers. And the conclusion at which the president arrived was, that congress had not the right to adopt and execute a system of internal improvement; but not doubting that improvements for great national purposes would be better made by the national government than by the governments of the several states," he expressed the opinion, that "an amendment to the constitution ought to be recommended to the several states for their adoption."

CHAPTER XXIII.

THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE. _ADMISSION OF MAINE AND MISSOURI INTO

THE UNION.

During the session of 1819–20, was passed the act to admit the new state of Missouri into the union. A bill for this purpose had been in. troduced at the preceding session. In its progress in the house, Gen. Tallmadge, of New York, moved an amendment prohibiting the farther introduction of slavery within the territory, and requiring that all children born therein after its admission, should be free at the age

of twenty-five years. The amendment was adopted by a vote of 73 to 67, but was disagreed to in the senate; and the bill was lost.

At the next session, (December 7, 1819,) a memorial from the people of the district of Maine, until then a part of the state of Massachusetts, praying to be admitted into the union on an equal footing with the original states, with a copy of the constitution formed for the state, was presented to the house. At the same time was presented a memorial from the people of Missouri, asking to be authorized to form a constitution, and to be admitted as a state. A bill for the admission of Maine passed the house without material opposition. In the senate its progress was arrested by Mr. James Barbour, of Virginia, who moved an amend. ment (February 3d,) coupling it with the bill for the admission of Missouri without any restriction as to slavery. This gave rise to a debate which continued till near the close of the session, and terminated in the famed " Missouri compromise."

In the house on the 26th of January, Mr. Taylor, of New York, moved an amendment to the Missouri bill of that body, interdicting slavery in the state; providing, however, that fugitive slaves might be roclaimed within the same, and that the provision should not alter the condition of those already held as slaves in the territory. In the house also the debate was long and animated.

On the 16th of February, in the senate, the proposed junction of the two states into one bill was decided in the affirmative, 23 to 21; all the senators being present and voting. From the free states, Edwards and Thomas, the two senators from Illinois, and Taylor, of Indiana, voted in the affirmative; and from the slave states, the Delaware senators, Horsey and Van Dyke, voted in the negative.

Mr. Thomas, of Illinois, then offered an amendment to the Missouri branch of the bill, proposing to prohibit slavery in all that territory ceded by France to the United States, under the name of Louisiana,

7

« PreviousContinue »