{"newspaper_name": "Mississippi Democrat.", "edition": "01", "page": "p2", "byline": ""}
{"character_count": 988, "word_count": 182, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9459999799728394], "ccnet_perplexity": [1096.4000244140625], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}
al will say nothing OF the Constitution.
| know that in the present state of polit.
cal morals that is feeble barrier against
any selfish project. | ask however, with
no hope Of an answer) why these ports
and rivers are entitled to preference over
ohersl The absurd claim under the or
dnance Of 1887, is not often referred to-
1t was once claimed under that ordinance,
that because the States could not shut up
the Ohio, they had no power 10 keep il open;
and, therefore II must be done by the Ge-
neral Government! Ii the ordinance Of
1857, giving common use of those ri.
vers, was not useless when passed, it be
came so on the adoption of our new con.
stltulion which placed every nayigable ri.
yer in the union on the same footing, ac-
cordlng TO the decisions Of tho Supreme
Court.


This absurd preiension could not serve
its purpose loag 1t only applied to the
rivers in the northwest territory, and did
NOT touch the Hudson, the Missouri, the
Arkansas, Red rieer, OR EVEN THE Mis-.