SENATE. Military Peace Establishment. FEBRUARY, 1817. similar source. That a part of the present expen-asserted, a strong claim on the gratitude of the diture was for fortifications and ordnauce stores country. is admitted. This was also the case with the expenditure of former years; and, it is believed, to as great an extent, in comparison with the whole sum expended. The estimated expenses of building and keeping in service ships of war were taken from detailed estimates of the Secretary of the Navy. It has been asserted that the increase of our revenue is equal to the increase of expenses in the Military Establishment. Were the fact so, no argument could be derived from it to justify those expenses, unless it can be shown that the Establishment, to its present extent, is necessary. But, in truth, our revenue has by no means increased in an equal ratio with our military expenditure. For the period of ten years, from 1800 to 1811, the military expenditure was little more than a million and a half of dollars yearly. The average revenue of that period was about thirteen millions a year. In one of those years, (1808,) the receipts from imposts alone exceeded sixteen millions of dollars. The excessive importations of the last year have increased the amount to be received this year beyond what may be expected in future. The Secretary of the Treasury estimates the receipts from imposts, for the next year, at only twelve millions; and the whole revenue from this and all other sources, that year, at sixteen millions two hundred and fifty thousand dollars only. His expectation is, that the imposts will in subsequent years be more productive, and that the permanent revenue may be estimated at twenty-two millions two hundred and fifty thousand dollars. It ought also to be recollected, that the national debt has, by the late war, been greatly increased-amounting, at the present time, to more than one hundred and ten millions of dollars-the payment of the interest and gradual reduction of the principal of which must be provided for. There is, therefore, no just proportion in the increase of the revenue and of the military expenditure. I have said nothing in derogation of their services or merits. That they are meritorious, seems to be admitted by all. But this, in my opinion, is no sufficient reason why they should be retained, if the country has no occasion for their services. Many officers were dismissed at the conclusion of the late war, some of whom were equally meritorious with those retained. If the officers have not been sufficiently remunerated for their services, make a suitable provision for that purpose. But, why should the country, for the sake of remunerating them, be compelled to keep up, at an immense expense, a Military Establishment twice as large as is necessary? The highest praise of the Army of our Revolution was, that, when the country was restored to peace, and no longer needed their services, they cheerfully retired to the scenes of private life. This conduct forms the trait in the character of their illustrious Chief, which has excited the admiration of the world. In the attitude of surrendering his sword, and returning to the duties of a private citizen, the wisdom of the Government has determined he shall be represented by the pencil of the artist, as an example for the instruction and imitation of future generations. Is it intended that the officers of the present Army shall be represented in the unfavorable contrast of importuning for pay and subsistence, when no services beneficial to their country can be rendered? Surely those gallant and high-minded men disdain to have any claim, in their behalf, rested on such ground. It is for those who op posed a reduction of the Army to show that its present number is necessary for the country, not that it is convenient to the officers. They can be rewarded, if indeed further rewards are merited or claimed, in a manner less expensive to the country, and equally honorable to them. The question was then taken, and Mr. BARBOUR's motion, to postpone to the 4th of March next, determined in the affirmative-yeas 24, nays 11, as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Barbour, Brown, Campbell, Chace, Condit, Fromentin, Gaillard, Hanson, Howell, Hunter, King, Lacock, Mason of Virginia, Morrow, Noble, Roberts, Ruggles, Sanford, Stokes, Tait, Taylor, Troup, Williams, and Wilson. The honorable gentleman from Virginia has gravely stated, as a reason for not reducing the Army at the present time, that the Dey of Algiers will not observe the treaty he lately made with our Government. If that or similar reasons should be deemed sufficient, the Army will never be reduced; for surely such reasons can never be NAYS-Messrs. Ashmun, Daggett, Dana, Goldswanting. As long as the barbarous Powers on borough, Horsey, Macon, Mason of New Hampshire, the southern coast of the Mediterranean are suf-Smith, Thompson, Tichenor, and Varnum. fered to exist, we shall always have cause for apprehending a rupture with some of them. But, of what possible use will the Army be in a contest with those Powers? Is it in the contemplation of any one to transport our Army into Africa, to lay siege to Algiers? It must be a naval force that shall, as it now does, restrain and curb those Powers. Whole, the consideration of the bill to secure, in The Senate resumed, as in Committee of the certain cases, the bounty in land to the heirs of deceased soldiers; and, after progress, the Senate adjourned. WEDNESDAY, February 26. Mr. TAYLOR, from the Committee on Public Lands, to whom was referred the bill entitled “An act to amend an act entitled 'An act granting bounties in land and extra pay to certain Canadian volunteers,' passed 5th March, 1816," reported it without amendment. Mr. MASON, of Virginia, from the Committee on the District of Columbia, to whom was referred the bill, entitled "An act to authorize the extension of the Columbia turnpike road, within the District of Columbia," reported it without amend ment. Mr. WILLIAMS, from the Committee on Military Affairs, to whom was referred the bill entitled "An act for the relief of certain officers," reported it without amendment. The Senate resumed the consideration of the motion of the 25th instant, for instructing the Committee on Pensions to inquire into the expediency of increasing the pension of Randolph Clarkson, and agreed thereto. The Senate resumed the consideration of the report of the Committee of Claims, to whom was referred the petition of Frederick Folley: Whereupon, Resolved, That the prayer of the petitioner be disallowed. SENATE. lation that the whole amount thus pledged will be between twelve and thirteen millions of dollars. The bill contains none of the details for the construction, superintendance, or management of the works, or for the regulation of the expenditure of the money. In answer to the remarks of the gentleman who had just sat down, that a great post road from Portland to New Orleans-that turnpike roads through all parts of our country, and that canals from Boston bay to St. Mary's, along the shores of the Atlantic, were objects of immense importance-Mr. D. said that he had no disposition to enter into any controversy on any of those suggestions. He however would remark, that this bill does not purport to provide for the establishment of such post road, but leaves it in the option of any State through which such road might be contemplated to prevent it. Nor is it admitted, as alleged, that such canals would be used for the transpor The resolution respecting the printing for Contation of commodities to and from the great comgress was read the second time. The resolution to authorize the pay to the assistants to the Sergeant-at-Arms, and Doorkeeper of the Senate was read the second time, and considered as in Committee of the Whole; and the resolution was ordered to be engrossed, and read a third time. The bill for the relief of the heirs of William B. Carter, was read the second time. The engrossed bill authorizing a subscription for an additional volume of the laws of the United States, and for the distribution thereof, was read a third time; and, on motion, by Mr. VARNUM, the further consideration thereof was postponed until the 4th day of March next. INTERNAL IMPROVEMENTS. The Senate resumed, as in Committee of the Whole, the consideration of the bill, entitled "An act to set apart and pledge, as a permanent fund for internal improvements, the bonus of the National Bank, and the United States share of its dividends. Mr. DAGGETT moved that the further consideration thereof be postponed until the fourth day of March next. Mr. DAGGETT said, that before he attempted to discuss the merits of the bill, he would briefly state the substance of it, and also suggest a thought or two in reply to some of the observations of the honorable gentleman from Pennsylvania, (Mr. LACOCK. The bill proposes to set apart and pledge as a fund $1,500,000, to be received for granting a charter to the National Bank, and the dividends for twenty years on seven millions of stock in the bank, owned by the United States, for the purpose of constructing roads and canals and improving the navigation of water-courses. As the seven millions of stock was created by the United States to invest in this bank at the rate of five per cent. per annum, $350,000 must be annually raised by taxes towards this appropriation. The dividends will probably not be less than at the rate of eight per cent. per annum, and in that case will amount to $560,000. It is then a fair calcu mercial towns and cities in the United States. If canals were constructed according to the gentleman's ideas, the intercourse spoken of would, in all times of peace, be as it ever has been, by sea and not by inland navigation. Having made these few remarks, he would point the attention of the Senate to some of the objections in his mind to the bill. 1st. It is not authorized by the Constitution; and, if it were, secondly, it is inexpedient. Mr. D. said that he should with much reluctance urge any objections arising out of the Constitution, for he had long since learned that the Constitution is made to change with the times. It was one thing yesterday-it is another to-day. It is to be enlarged as the nation increases in greatness and glory-it must yield to the pressing exigencies of the moment. He need not say there is no power in the Constitution expressly authorizing the Congress to construct roads and canals, and to tax the people to defray the expense. No one asserts the existence of such power. There is not a word upon the face of the instrument on the subject, except that it is declared, article one, section eight, that "the Congress shall have power to establish post offices and post roads." This, so far from authorizing the establishment by Congress of all roads, limits, if it bear at all on the point, the power to post roads only; otherwise it must be shown that an instrument which gives a special power over post roads, in terms, gives, by implication, a general power over all roads. Such absurdity should not be imputed to the wise men who framed this Constitution. The reverse of all this is unquestionably true. By sound rules of interpretation, the expression of one thing is the exclusion of another. The Constitution declares, "The Congress shall have power to provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities of the United States-to constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court-to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions; to exercise exclusive legislation over ten miles square," &c. In the cases mentioned, is SENATE. Internal Improvements. FEBRUARY, 1817. not the Congress prohibited from providing for and prosperity of the community, are provisions the punishment of counterfeiting private securi- for the "common defence and general welfare." ties, from establishing tribunals superior to the The Congress, then, may construct and support Supreme Court; from calling forth the militia to roads, bridges, and canals; regulate manufactures garrison forts in time of peace; and from exer- and agriculture; establish schools, academies, and cising exclusive legislation over the city of Bal-colleges; enact wise laws for the suppression of timore? Again. The States, at the adoption sin-for the preservation of morals-for the punof the Constitution, possessed the entire control ishment of all offenders, and thus assume all the over all the roads and canals within their respec- powers of legislation. Then, indeed, our Union tive limits. On this point there can be no doubt. would be strengthened, as mentioned by the genEach State always has, and now does, exercise tleman from Pennsylvania, (Mr. LACOCK;) our this power. Is it taken by the express prohibition ? State authorities broken down, and our GovernCertainly not. Is it taken by implication? Cer- ment consolidated. tainly not, unless the power is given to the Congress in such manner as to preclude the exercise of it by the States, and for such an idea no one contends. Will the power in question be claimed by that part of the Constitution which authorizes Congress to regulate commerce between the States? If so, to regulate commerce, means to promote, to facilitate, to secure it by all discreet measures, and the bill seems to have been framed in reference to such an exposition. Inspection laws are useful to promote commerce between States, and yet laws of this character have never been attempted by Congress; on the contrary, the States have the power, by irresistible implication, of enacting inspection laws, and there is an express power given to Congress "to revise and control them ;" and this enumeration of that power strongly implies, that no other power over this subject is intended to be given. Is there a power in the General Government over roads and canals, concurrent with the power of the States? If so, it may be asked, where are the limitations of these respective powers? Or have the Congress a sovereign authority, and is that of the States subordinate? The Constitution is silent on this subject—not so, where concurrent powers may be exercised. For example, in the tenth section of article first, it is provided that the States shall lay no imposts except such as are absolutely necessary for executing their inspection laws-they may not keep troops or ships of war in time of peace, nor engage in war It would be wise, in the opinion of many, that unless actually invaded. It is within the province all promissory notes should be negotiable to faof the National Government to lay duties and cilitate commerce; and undoubtedly the whole imposts, to keep troops and ships of war, and es-law on the subject of inland bills of exchange is pecially to engage in war; yet these powers in intimately connected with commerce; the buythe cases specified and with the limitations pre-ing and selling of slaves in one State, to be transscribed, are retained by the States, and may be exercised concurrently. In the eighth section of the first article, and in the second section of the second article, there are more striking examples of concurrent powers. To the Congress, the power is given of calling forth the militia in the cases therein mentioned, and to the President the power of being their commander-in-chief when in actual service. There is also reserved to the States the power of appointing their officers and of training the militia. There may be some questions as to the precise extent of the powers of this Government and of the States over the militia, but a concurrent power is manifestly established and attempted to be defined. เ ported into another, is a portion of the commerce between States. Laws, then, may be made by Congress to control all these subjects. It may deserve much consideration, whether such a broad construction is not in the face of the Constitution, and especially of the tenth article of the amendments, which is in these words: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited to it by the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." It is said, however, that appropriations have been made, and roads laid out by Congress; and the Cumberland road and others are mentioned. Congress may undoubtedly make roads through Mr. D. asked again, is this measure Constitu- the lands of the United States, not within the tional, because Congress may provide for the jurisdiction of any State, and the Cumberland "general welfare and common defence?" If so, road was established probably as a post road. Be then an enumeration of powers was wholly un- that as it may, precedents of such doubtful charnecessary, and is worse than useless; then there acter, and of such modern date, will not weigh is no Constitutional limit to the powers of this much. The Constitution is not to be expounded Government, but the discretion of the Legisla- by a single decision of the Legislature. It would ture; and, in truth, such is now a very prevalent scarcely be admitted by a majority of the Senate, opinion, if a judgment is to be formed from the that the Sedition law, as it is termed, was authormanner in which power is claimed and exercised. ized by the Constitution, though it received the The instrument may be termed "the sacred char-sanction of the judicial tribunals, as well as the ter of our liberties-our polar star," and by many other pretty names, and at the same time be practically disregarded. Again, said Mr. D., all those internal and municipal regulations, of every description, which contribute to promote the strength Legislature; nor is it clear that the act to repeal the Judiciary law in 1803, would now be viewed as it was when passed. It is further asserted that these roads and canals are to be constructed, and the expenditure made, with the assent of the States, and thus the power of Congress, if doubtful, is confirmed, and the bill in question is drawn with this aspect. Mr. D. said, on this point he would ask one question: Can money be appropriated by Congress for an object over which it is not authorized to legislate, because the States assent? Or, in other words, can a law be made, with the consent of the States, which is not warranted by the Constitution? By the Constitution, the judicial power extends to all cases arising under the Constitution, &c. Can Congress, with the assent of the States, extend the judicial power to murders, felonies, and other offences committed in the States? Where would be found a judge rash enough to execute such a law? It is believed that the true doctrine is, that the Constitution is the shield of every individual in the nation, and that its powers can neither be enlarged nor diminished by the States, except by amendments made in pursuance of its provisions. It may be added, that neither of the Presidents, Washington or Adams, ever proposed a measure of this character. The present Chief Magistrate has suggested it in one or more of his Messages, but always with doubts as to the propriety of an interference, without amendments to the Constitution. President Jefferson, in his communication to Congress in 1806, after exhibiting the condition of the Treasury, and thereby showing the large surplusses of revenue, proceeds to inquire whether the import duties should be continued, and thereby the overplusses be accumulated; and, if so, how they should be disposed of; and, on this subject, makes the following observations: SENATE. If, however, there were no objections arising from a want of Constitutional authority, Mr. D. said, that, in his judgment, the project was inexpedient. No details are provided. What is to be the amount of interest in these various projects? Are co-partnerships with States or with individuals to be formed, and the profits divided? Or are boards of works to be established in all the States, with all the machinery of management incident to them, to be superintended by Congress? On all these points, and many others which might be suggested, the bill is silent; and the only answer we hear from the friends of the bill, to our inquiries, is, no details can be agreed on; should details be attempted, the bill would not be carried. Is this a sufficient answer? Before we proceed to grant away more than twelve millions of dollars, it is reasonable that the manner of expenditure should be pointed out. The time also is not proper. A war has just terminated, leaving upon us a debt (with that which existed before) of one hundred and twenty millions of dollars. Our navigating and manufacturing interests are languishing, and no small portion of distress pervades many parts of our country. It is not, then, the prosperous moment to enter upon gigantic projects-it is not the time to expend millions on undefined objects. It would be unwise, at any time, to pledge this great amount, and pledge it beyond the control of Government in any exigency of affairs. We are now at peace-we may soon be at war. Yesterday a proposition to reduce the army was rejected; and a strong reason urged was, that our rebelations with a nation bordering on our territory were in a disturbed condition. We all have a painful recollection of the state of our pecuniary resources during the years 1813, '14, and '15. We have now a full Treasury, and we speak of it as inexhaustible. Young men, coming to the possession of ample fortunes, deem their riches endless; they plan, build, improve, project, and boast, that "to-morrow will be as this day, and more also." The issue of such schemes we have witnessed. No private or public treasure is inexhaustible, without frugal and discreet management. Are we sure of the continuance of our resources? That derived from the land tax we can no longer look to; the other internal taxes will surely follow that on the land. A disposition is manifest to rid the nation of these vexatious taxes, and they will soon die, without a struggle or a groan. Our revenue from imposts is liable, at all times, to be seriously affected or cut off by a war. In such an event, will the people acquiesce in supporting burdens to construct roads and canals? The appropriation can be made by the next Congress; no part of the $1,500,000 will be received before its next session, and not more than one dividend. A change in the aspect of our affairs may occasion regret for this measure. "On a few articles of more general and necessary use, the suppression, in due season, will doubtless right; but the great mass of the articles on which impost is paid are foreign luxuries, purchased by those only who are rich enough to afford themselves the use of them. Their patriotism would certainly prefer its continuance and application to the great purposes of the public education, roads, rivers, canals, and such other object of public improvement as it may be thought proper to add to the Constitutional enumeration of Federal powers. By these operations new channels of communication will be opened between the States; the lines of separation will disappear; their interests will be identified, and their union cemented by new and indissoluble ties. Education is here placed among the articles of public care; not that it is proposed to take its ordinary branches out of the hands of private enterprise, which manages so much better all the concerns to which it is equal, but a public institution can alone supply those sciences, which, though rarely called for, are yet necessary to complete the circle; all the parts of which contribute to the improvement of the country, and some of them to its preservation. The subject is now proposed for the consideration of Congress, because, if approved by the time the State Legislatures shall have deliberated on this extension of the Federal trusts, and the laws shall be passed, and other arrangements made for their execution, the necessary funds will be on hand, and without employment. I suppose an amendment to the Constitution, by consent of the States, necessary, because the objects now recommended are not among those enumerated in the Constitution, and to which it permits the public moneys to be applied." Many of the States have already expended large sums for the objects contemplated by this bill. The public is sufficiently accommodated. It is inequitable to burden such States with taxes, for a system of internal improvements, not needed by themselves, because other States have neglected these objects. FEBRUARY, 1817. The measure is inexpedient, because, upon the principles assumed in the bill, the United States may be defeated in the accomplishment of the proposed objects, by a refusal of the assent of the States. If this Government had not the power of controlling absolutely roads and canals, leave them with the competent authorities. If it has the power, it should be examined in a manner becoming the supreme authority, and not by bar-it is the opinion of a few only; but suppose this gains with States. There is also not a little reason to apprehend, that this project will produce much discord. On the subject of roads and canals, much sensibility is entertained by the citizens of the several States. Each section of a State will have its favorite plan. The State Legislatures and Congress will be besieged with applications and remonstrances, and a wide door opened to intrigue. In view of all these considerations, is it not a dictate of wisdom to pause before we adopt a measure so important, so doubtful in its expediency, so questionable as to its constitutionality? Mr. HARDIN said: As the motion to postpone the bill until the 4th of March had not been made on account of any special reason, he could not see why the Senate should not now act on the subject; and as it would, if it prevailed, defeat the bill, it involved the merits of the subject, and to that he should turn his attention. I was in hopes, said Mr. H., that this bill had been so framed as to render the discussion of the Constitutional question-how far Congress had a right to make roads and canals-unnecessary; but, since it has been urged in debate, I flatter myself that I shall be able to show that there is nothing in this bill, nor in the measures it contemplates, which will violate the Constitution. From the general organization of our institutions, we are naturally led to look to the General Government for support and protection as to those matters which relate to our national rights; and to the States for those which relate to our individual or social rights. In questions which involve the rights of one State or its citizens, in confliction with the claims of another State, or the citizens thereof, it is the General Government which is to decide these matters. To this end has the Constitution given jurisdiction to the courts of the United States in controversies between different States, or the citizens of different States. We have a right, therefore, to contend, that from the general tenor of the Constitution, whenever there are rights which the State, as a State, cannot cherish or protect, without coming in collision with a sister State, the General Government has a right to interfere and to extend its aid. Virginia, have a deep interest in the navigation of the Ohio river and an intercourse with Louisville. It is known that the rapids of that river, at Louisville, present a great obstruction to the navigation; I have heard some men say, that they thought it the interest of Louisville and its vicinity, that these obstructions never should be removed; that they caused the stoppage of nearly every boat that passed, and thus rendered them tributary to the adjoining towns. This I know is not the sentiment of my countrymen generally, contracted policy was to pervade the States of Kentucky and Indiana, and they were to refuse their co-operation, aid, or assent, to improving this navigation, would you say, sir, that the na tion is manacled; that it possesses no power to interfere and protect the rights of those who wish to navigate this stream? It is certain that the States of Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Virginia, as such, could not. This power, the power to regulate and to promote intercourse between the States, ought to belong to the General Government. But what are the grounds on which it is contended that Congress do not possess this power? The honorable member from Connecticut (Mr. DAGGETT) has contended, that because the Constitution has expressly given the power to establish post roads, they are, by a legal rule of construction, excluded from establishing other roads. This would be correct, if there were no other parts of the Constitution from which this power could be fairly deduced; if the subject of post roads was not one which particularly called for such a provision as is contained in the Constitution. If no provision were in the Constitution relative to the establishment of post roads, I should not doubt the power of Congress to establish post roads from State to State. But it might well be doubted whether they had the power to establish a post road between two little towns within the same State, and off from the main post routes, for the purposes of neighborhood, not State, convenience. Hence the necessity for this express power in the Constitution. But let us resort to the Constitution, and see if it does not sanction the objects of this bill. It is not necessary for me to contend, that “to provide for the general welfare," is a substantive grant of power. Take the paragraph of the Constitution according to the most limited sense in which it is construed by any one, and omit intervening words, and it will read, "Congress have power to collect taxes, to provide for the general welfare." In other words, Congress have power to raise money when the public welfare shall require it, and to disburse it in providing for the public welfare. If Congress possesses this power, the first quesIn relation to the intercourse between different tion presenting itself is, will the public welfare States, it may frequently happen that two States, be promoted by great roads which shall exinterested in promoting it, cannot succeed, owing | to the want of co-operation, or of the permission of an intervening State; for example, the State of Ohio and the western parts of Pennsylvania and tend from Maine to Louisiana, from the Atlantic to the Mississippi? which shall by canals connect inland navigation from one end of our union to the other-promote intercourse between State |