{"newspaper_name": "The daily union.", "edition": "01", "page": "p1", "byline": ""}
{"character_count": 7737, "word_count": 1309, "ccnet_language_score": [0.951200008392334], "ccnet_perplexity": [833.4000244140625], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}
ers. We deny some Of them. We contend tina
the government has no power TO make such appro
pralons unless the object be national and not State
general and not local They contend for the con
trary. We contend that Congress can carry the
appropriation into effect, where the jurisdiction ovei
the subject is left with the States but that Con
gress cannot do where il is necessary 10 assume
jurisdiction in the general government so as "a
charge toll, DC. They contend for the contrary
These distinctions are clearly taken by Mr.. Monroe
and Gen. Jackson, as will presently show.
These distinctions were broken down and over
rode under the administration of Mr. ]. q. Adams, in
the attempt then made TO establish ga general sys-
tenn Of internal improvements" II was this system
which was hurrying the country into ruin by enor-
nous waslefu and extrayagant expenditures, and
infringing upon the powers and sovereignty OF the
States, which was put down by the democratic par
~ during the administration Of Gen. Jackson. II
is this system which is condemned by the Balti-
more convention, when they declare that "the con-
sututon does not confer upon the general govern-
ment the power to commence and carry on general
system Of internal improvements"
In that declaration such appropriations as are
contained in this bill were not contemplated. Nor
were the appropriations proposed by this bill such
as were vetoed by Gen Jackson, for we find that he
and Mr.. Van Buren signed bills making appropra'
tons to all the objects Of Improvement contemplated
by this bill.


For improving the navigation of the Ohio and
p'-SiSSlPpi INoiSp III 1857 low lOolI 1901 ulu
1888.


For improving the navigation Of the Ohio. Mis-
slsslppi, and Missouri rivers, in 1882, 1888, 1884,
1885, 1886, 1887, and 1893.


For improving the navigation Of the Mississippi
river above the mouth Of the Ohio and the Missouri
river, in 1886, 1887, and 1893.


For improving the navigation Of the Arkansas
river, in 1882 1885, 1887, and 1888.


For improving the navigation Of the Ohio river,
above the falls Of the Ohio, in 1885, 1885, 1887 and
1893.


For improving the navigation Of the Hudson riv-
er, above and below Albany, in the State of New
York, in 1894, 1886, 1887, and 1888.


For improving the navigation of the Red river,
Louisiana, in 1882, 1884, 1885, 1886, 1887, and
1888.


For improving the navigation Of the Savannah
river, Georgia, in 1892, 1884, 1885, and 1886.


For harbors on the seas and on the lakes in every
year Of the eight years Of General Jackson's ad-
mlnistrauOn, and in 1887 and 1888 Of Mr. Van
Burens.


And yet, in the face Of these facts gentlemen are
found bold enough to declare that the appropriations
contained in this bill unconstitutional and en-.
bruced by the MaysviIle veto and that system of
internal improvements which strangled and
crushed by General Jackson, and condemned by the
Baltimore convention, when the legislative history
Of the nation shows that General Jackson signed
bills making these appropriations at every session Of
Congress duriag his administration.


Equally are the opinions expressed by the oppo-
nents Of this bill, opposed TO those practical EXPOSE
tons of the meaning Of the constitution be found
in the action Of Congress in regard to such appro
priations those proposed by this bill. Congress,
as early as 1889, (see Appendix, No. 5,) passed an
act which shows very defnltiyely what were the
opinions Of that body (many Of whose members
were Of those who had composed the convention by
which the constitution was formed) in relation to so
much of this bill proposes appropriations for At
IL. H. "A. IL.
preparations have been constantly made, year after
year, and time after time. (See Appendix, No. 6.)


have already shown the legislative history of this
matter, as regards the rivers in this BILL (Sse APP
pendix, No. ~ The action of Congress and of the
Executive, during the administrations of Jackson
and Van Buren, is equally conclusive as to the lake
harbors (See Appendix, No. 81 We thus find
that the government has, by long line of Legislative
action, from the commencement of its existence to
the present day, uninterrupted by any doubt Of the
existence Of the power to make the appropriations
in this BILL always asserted and exercised this pow
err and has, in the exercise Of it, appropriated vast
sums Of money. The power to make these appro-
priations has never been doubted by statesmen of
eminence, to whom the democratic party have ever
looked true eXponents Of the doctrines of that
party, and challenge and defy the gentlemen who
ha re opposed this bill to name one single man Of
eminence Of the democratic party mean such
men as have been elected or talked Of by that party





ed such opinions those gentlemen have in oppo-
siton to this bill.


have already shown what the opinion of
General Washington who signed the bill OF 1887.


Mr.. Jefferson not only signed bills making large
appropriations to the Cumberland road, but also rec
commended that a reconnaissance and survey should
be made for national road from Washington to
New Orleans.


Mr.. Madison, in his special message in 1911
communicating to Congress copies of the act of the
legislature of New York in relation to a canal to
connect the Hudson river with the lakes, expresses
himself in very decided language in favor of the util-
ity Of canal navigation; the peculiar adapati of
our country improvements of that character; the
importance of system of internal communication
and conveyance for the general necessity, and rec
ommends the same to the consideration of Con-
gress. (See appendix, No. 81


Mr.. Madison, it is true, in his seventh annual
message suggests that "any defect of constitutional
authority which may be encountered can be sup
piled in manner which the constitution itself has
provdently pointed out" (See appendix No. l0.)
This suggestion is not made by him as entertaining
any doubts upon this subject HIMSELF but in refer.
ence to the doubts entertained by others. He stood
fully committed in favor of appropriations by the
general government for the construction of new
roads and navigable canals, and the improvement of
the navigation Of navigable rivers, requiring ma
tional jurisdiction and national means.


Mr.. Monroe was fully alive to the national adap-
tation of our country to improvements Of this char
acter, and their importance in shortening distances
and binding the Union more closely together, and
makes doubt in his inaugural address Of the pow
Of Congress to make appropriations for that pur
pose. (See appendix No. ll.)


Mr. Monroe, in his first annual message, in 1917,
expresses a change Of opinion, and qualities his
opinions formerly expressed in relation to the pow
er of Congress to apply appropriations to the con-
structon Of roads and canals 1t is in this message
he first draws the distinction to which | have al
ready adverted, in which he denies that Congress
has the power to apply appropriations to the con-
strucon Of roads and canals, where Congress
should, at the same time assume jurisdiction, so as
gates charge tolls &c. But heidi not then
did he afterwards, deny to Congress the power
- make appropriations even for the construction of
roads and canals Of national and not local char
acer, the jurisdiction remaining in The States; on
the contrary, in his seventh annual message, I'd De-
cember, 1893, he expressly recommends appropra-
tons in aid of the construction Of the Chesapeake
and Ohio canal, and an examination of the several
routes through which the waters Of the Ohio may
be connected with Lake Erie, and distinctly declares
it as his opinion "hat Congress possesses the right
to appropriate money for such national object" as