sonage of antiquity had in defending himself before King Agrippa. St. Paul said that he was "happy to have the privilege to address a judge who was learned in all the laws and customs of the Jews." So do "I think myself happy" to have the honor to present this subject before an assembly that are intelligent, and learned in the laws and constitution of their country. It is a principle acknowledged by all constitutional lawyers and constitutional writers, that the Congress of the United States possess no power of action further than is expressly given them by the constitution; and, on an attentive and careful examination of that instrument, it will be found that there exists no power in Congress to force on a State such improvements as are contemplated by this national road.

I would ask any gentleman in this House, if he would vote for an improvement of the country, such as the national road is, contrary to the express will and consent of the State in which the road was to be located? I do not believe there can be a case found in the history of this Government, where the General Government has forced on a State, contrary to the will and consent of the State, a road, or any such improvement. The United States possess the power to make all necessary roads for her military operations. This power arises from her exclusive and constitutional authority over the subject of war and all its consequences.

The national road which is now under consideration is not pretended to be a military road, or in any manner connected with the military operations of the Govern ment. The constitution of the United States expressly authorizes Congress "to establish post offices and post roads." Congress, having the constitutional authority and jurisdiction over this subject, must, as a necessary consequence, have the the power to "establish" post routes or post roads. The Congress, at their last session, established a great many post roads all over the Union. This is the establishment which, in my opinion, is contemplated by the constitution, and not the making of a road such as the national road is. It would not be seriously contended by any one, that, under the provisions of the constitution on this subject, Congress would be bound, or would have the constitutional competency, to make and cut out a road wherever they establish a post The national road is, in fact, no more a post road than it is a military road; and, consequently, the General Government, under the provisions of the constitution, have no power to force it on the States.

route.

If Congress possess the power, without the consent of the States through which this road passes, to make and open it in the States, then it must follow, as a matter of necessity, that Congress also possess the power to keep these roads in repair; and, in order to do this, they must establish toll gates and toll collectors on them. They must also possess the jurisdiction and control over them; and, consequently, must establish courts, and appoint officers, to enforce the acts of Congress, in the exercise of their jurisdiction over them. If Congress have the power, without the consent of the States, to make these roads, they must exercise all the jurisdiction and power above enumerated, in exclusion of the State authorities. This must be the necessary consequence, if they have the power, in the first instance, to make the roads. 1 believe that there is no American citizen who would be willing to see the United States assume and exercise the exclusive jurisdiction and control over these national improvements, and deprive the States of their constitutional sovereignty and rights within the limits of their own territory.

I bave heard intelligent gentlemen contend, that if the United States had the power to make the national road at all, they would have it as well without as with the consent of the States through which the road may pass.

[H. OF R.

I consider this position to be without foundation, and untenable. A State has the power and right to admit any individual or set of men to expend their money in the State, in such way or manner as the State may think prop. er and right. We see companies frequently incorporated by State authority to make roads, canals, and such improvements. They act under the authority of the State. They may be considered the agents or servants of the State, as they act under the control and laws of the State, and not by their own authority. In the same manner, when the State gives her consent to the General Government to make a road within the limits of the State, the United States acts not by its own authority, but by the power and authority delegated to it by the State Government. The General Government act under the authority of the State, and, like all other agents, can not transcend the power given.

This view of the subject is demonstrated by an act of the General Assembly of the State of Maryland, passed in November, 1802, which is in the following words, to wit:

"That this State do hereby give and grant their full approbation and consent that the Congress of the United States may appropriate, towards repairing and keeping in repair the post roads, or any one or more of them, within this State, such sum or sums of money as they in their wisdom may deem right, and to lay out and apply the same to said purpose, in any manner they by law direct: Provided, That nothing herein contained shall extend, or may be construed to extend, to authorize Congress to pass any law for the changing the direc tion of the roads, or any of them, as now established, or to authorize them to pass a law for the opening of a new road."

The above-recited act gives a construction to the constitutional power of Congress, and demonstrates the position that Congress is governed in its action on this subject by the authority of the State Government.

This view of the subject is also fortified by Congress transferring the national road to the States east of the Ohio, through which the road passes. Congress, by this act, disclaims the jurisdiction and exclusive control over this road, and transfers all her claim to it to the respective States in which it is located. This is an acknowledgment that the General Government had not the power or jurisdiction over this improvement, to the exclusion of the State Governments. It is a principle, acknowledged by all, that the construction and exposition given to a law or to a constitution, at or near the time the law or constitution was made, is of greater force and validity than a construction given at any other time. In 1806, which is not a great length of time after the constitution of the United States was adopted, an act of Congress passed on this very subject, and gave a construction to that instrument. This is the first act which was passed on the subject, and it is the act that established the Cumberland or national road.

I will read to you, Mr. Speaker, a part of the act of Congress, which requires the President of the United States to obtain the consent of the State through which this road was to be located. Commissioners were to be appointed by this act; and, on their report, the duty of the President is prescribed in the following act of Congress, to wit:

"Which report the President is hereby authorized to accept or reject, in the whole or in part. If he accepts, he is hereby further authorized and requested to pursue such measures as in his opinion shall be proper, to obtain consent, for making the road, of the State or States through which the same has been laid out; which consent being obtained, he is further authorized to take prompt and effectual measures to cause said road to be made through the whole distance, or in any part or parts

of the same he shall judge most conducive to the public good, having reference to the sum appropriated for the purpose."

In the execution of the above recited act of Congress, and in the performance of his duty under it, President Jefferson addressed the following message to Congress: "To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States:

"In execution of the act of the last session of Congress, entitled 'An act to regulate the laying out and making a road from Cumberland, in the State of Maryland, to the State of Ohio,' I appointed Thomas Moore, of Maryland, Joseph Kerr, of Ohio, and Eli Williams, of Maryland, commissioners to lay out the said road, and to perform the other duties assigned to them by the act. The progress which they made in the execution of the work, during the last session, will appear in their report now communicated to Congress. On the receipt of it, I took measures to obtain consent for making the road, of the States of Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Virginia, through which the commissioners proposed to lay it out. I have received acts of the Legislatures of Maryland and Virginia, giving the consent desired; that of Pennsylvania has the subject still under consideration, as is supposed. Until I receive full consent to a free choice of route through the whole distance, I have thought it safest neither to accept or reject, finally, the partial report of the commissioners. Some matters suggested in the report belong exclusively to the Legislature. TH. JEFFERSON.

JANUARY 31, 1807."

It is almost useless to observe that no person ever stood higher for splendid talents, and for a complete and perfect knowledge of our constitution and the nature of our Government, than President Jefferson did; and he deemed it necessary to have the "full consent" of the States "to a free choice of the route, through the whole distance," before he could cause the road to be made.

Mr. Speaker, I will trouble the House with only a few of the acts of the State Governments in which this road was located.

The following is an act of the General Assembly of Maryland, which passed 4th January, 1807, and fully recognises the principle that the General Government has no power to make the improvement without the "consent" of the State:

"Whereas a law passed the Congress of the United States on the 29th of March, 1806, directing the laying out of a road from Cumberland, on the Potomac river, to the Ohio; and the consent of this State being necessary to the opening of the same, so far as it may run within her limits, therefore,

"Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Maryland, That it shall be lawful, and the full and entire consent of the State of Maryland is hereby given to the opening and improving the same; and the President of the United States is hereby authorized to cause the said road to be laid out, opened, and improved, in such way and manner as by the beforc-recited act of Congress is required and directed."

An act passed the General Assembly of the State of Pennsylvania on the 9th April, 807, on this subject, and is as follows, to wit:

[DEC. 22, 1836.

Mr. Speaker, I will not trouble the House by reading any of the acts or resolutions of the General Assemblies of the States of Virginia, Ohio, or Indiana, through which this road passes. It will be found, on examination, that the consent of all the States, from one end of this road to the other, has been given to the General Government to construct the road, before the United States commenced it. It seems to me there cannot exist a doubt in the mind of any one that will examine the subject attentively, and see the course of the General Gorernment and of the States also on this subject, that Congress has not the constitutional power to force an im provement of this character on any State.

If Congress assume this power, and exercise it, State rights and State sovereignty might be prostrated. If Congress can force a road on a State four rods wide, it can force into a State one of forty miles wide, and must of necessity exercise exclusive jurisdiction over it. This would be unreasonable, and destructive to our system of government. It would have a tendency to the forma tion of a consolidated Government, which would destroy State rights and State Governments.

The President, in his late message of December, 1836, recognises this principle where he says that "The great struggle was begun against that latitudinarian conited appropriation of the revenue of the Union to interstruction of the constitution, which authorizes the unlimnal improvement within the States; tending to invest in the hands and place under the control of the General Government all the principal roads and canals of the country, in violation of State rights and in derogation of State authority."

This principle being demonstrated, that Congress has no power to make these works without the "consent" of the State in which they are located, the necessary consequence is growing out of the above resolutionthat the national road must cross the Mississippi river at Alton, in the State of Illinois. If the road does not cross the river at Alton, the consent of the State is given to locate it "at no other point." It is proper and right to mention that there is a contest between the States of Illinois and Missouri about the location of this road. The State of Illinois, as I have before remarked, is unanimous in her resolution to locate it at Alton; and the represent. atives of the people of Missouri wish it located so as to cross the Mississippi at St. Louis, in that State.

The people of Illinois entertain no unfriendly feelings towards the State of Missouri or the city of St. Louis. We are proud of the growth and prosperity of the State and of their city, but we are not so friendly to them as to advance their interests to the disparagement and destruction of our own rights and interests. We do "not love Cæsar less, but Rome more."

We, the people of Illinois, consider it our duty to advance our own happiness and interest, when it is not to do an injury or wrong to the State of Missouri or to the United States. We do not wish to injure St. Louis, but we are anxious to advance our own State and Alton.

contain a population of four or five thousand souls; and I know it is rather increasing in population, business, and importance. And although Alton may not contain

as great a population as St. Louis, yet there is in the State of Illinois an immense number of people more than in the State of Missouri, which ought to be a strong argument in favor of the State of Illinois.

[H. or R.

occupy the ground previously taken in the contest between Mexico and Texas.

If this resolution gave the consent of the State to cross the Mississippi river at a point entirely out of the direction from Vandalia to Jefferson city, then I would say it was unreasonable, and ought not to be urged on the consideration of this House. On such occasion, I should regret to find myself advocating a course of policy so absurd and unjust. But when I am clearly satisfied that the route by Alton is the nearest and best from Vandalia to Jefferson city, and that the General Government will take into consideration the will, interest, and "consent" of the State, in the location of this road, I feel a conscious rectitude in my course, and will pursue it, "uncaring of consequences."

I consider it my duty to pursue this course at this session of Congress, in conformity to the resolution of the General Assembly, and in accordance to the voice of the people, expressed in a meeting had on the occasion. The proceedings of this meeting were printed and laid on the table of each member.

Having finished my remarks on this resolution, I move to refer it to the Committee on Roads and Canals.

Mr. HARRISON, of Missouri, inquired of the gentleman from Illinois if his motion to refer was intended also to embrace instructions to the committee to report a bill in pursuance of the resolutions presented; be cause, if so, Mr. H. wished to have an opportunity of replying to the gentleman.

Mr. REYNOLDS replied that his motion did not embrace instructions.

The motion to refer was then agreed to.

TEXAS.

The following message was received from the President of the United States, by the hands of ANDREW JACKSON, Jr., his private secretary:

To the House of Representatives U. S.

During the last session, information was given to Congress, by the Executive, that measures had been taken to ascertain the political, military, and civil condition of Texas." I now submit, for your consideration, extracts from the report of the agent who had been appointed to collect it, relative to the condition of that country.

No steps have been taken by the Executive towards the acknowledgment of the independence of Texas; and the whole subject would have been left without further remark, on the information now given to Congress, were it not that the two Houses, at their last session, acting separately, passed resolutions that the independence of Texas ought to be acknowledged by the United States, whenever satisfactory information should be received that it had in successful operation a civil Government, capable of performing the duties and fulfilling the obligations of an independent Power." This mark of interest in the question of the independence of Texas, and indication of the views of Congress, make it proper that I should, somewhat in detail, present the considerations that have governed the Executive in continuing to VOL. XIII.-72

to be regarded as a proof of an unfriendly spirit to one of the contending parties. All questions relative to the government of foreign nations, whether of the old or the new world, have been treated by the United States as questions of fact only; and our predecessors have cautiously abstained from deciding upon them until the clearest evidence was in their possession, to enable them not only to decide correctly, but to shield their decisions from every unworthy imputation. In all the contests that have arisen out of the revolutions of Frence, out of the disputes relating to the crowns of Portugal and Spain, out of the revolutionary movements in those kingdoms, out of the separation of the American possessions of both from the European Governments, and out of the numerous and constantly occurring struggles for domin. ion in Spanish America, so wisely consistent with our just principles has been the action of our Government, that we have, under the most critical circumstances, avoided all censure, and encountered no other evil than that produced by a transient estrangement of good will in those against whom we have been, by force of evidence, compelled to decide.

It has thus been made known to the world that the uniform policy and practice of the United States is, to avoid all interference in disputes which merely relate to the internal government of other nations, and eventually to recognise the authority of the prevailing party, without reference to our particular interests and views, or to the merits of the original controversy. Public opinion here is so firmly established and well understood in favor of this policy, that no serious disagreement has ever arisen among ourselves in relation to it, although brought under review in a variety of forms, and at periods when the minds of the people were greatly excited by the agitation of topics purely domestic in their character. Nor has any deliberate inquiry ever been instituted in Congress, or in any of our legislative bodies, as to whom belonged the power of originally recognising a new State-a power the exercise of which is equivalent, under some circumstances, to a declaration of war--a power nowhere expressly delegated, and only granted in the constitution, as it is necessarily involved in some of the great powers given to Congress; in that given to the President and Senate to form treaties with foreign Pow ers, and to appoint ambassadors and other public ministers; and in that conferred upon the President to receive ministers from foreign nations.

In the preamble to the resolution of the House of Representatives, it is distinctly intimated that the expe diency of recognising the independence of Texas should be left to the decision of Congress. In this view, on the ground of expediency, I am disposed to concur; and do not, therefore, consider it necessary to express any opin ion as to the strict constitutional right of the Executive, either apart from or in conjunction with the Senate, over the subject. It is to be presumed that on no future occasion will a dispute arise, as none has heretofore occurred, between the Executive and Legislature, in the exercise of the power of recognition. It will always be considered consistent with the spirit of the constitution, and most safe, that it should be exercised, when probably leading to war, with a previous understanding with that hody by whom war can alone be declared, and by whom

number. At the last session of Congress, the House had ordered some twenty thousand copies of the President's message and the accompanying documents to be printed; and at what period were they circulated over the country? Not until spring; and he questioned whether all of them were even delivered then. The House had, at this session, ordered fifteen thousand copies of the message; and how many of that number had been delivered to the members of the House? Not more than six-he thought not more than five. And these very documents had now been returned here, printed by the country newspapers, before all the copies ordered by this House had been received.

He was desirous, on this as on all other occasions, to lay all important documents before the people, and he cared not how widely they were disseminated, when there was any apparent necessity for so doing. In such cases he was disposed to go to the utmost extent in disseminating information; but he drew a wide distinction between supporting a public press and disseminating information among the people.

He agreed with other gentlemen, that this was an important document; and if it were of so lengthy a character as not to admit of its general republication amongst the newspapers of the country, he was willing, so far as the expense was concerned, to vote any sum to communicate the information it contained. But could it be doubted that, before a tenth part of these 20,000 copies were delivered, every member would receive papers from his own district containing the same document? It seemed to him that the House ought to come to some understanding on this subject of printing; and that they ought not, because a document was important, to print so large an extra number of copies, when it was considered that the information was not disseminated through them, but by means of the newspaper press. He hoped the House would bring the expenses of this department back to what they had formerly been. He was willing to vote for 10,000 copies, but for no higher number.

Mr. D. J. PEARCE, in replying to the gentleman from Ohio, remarked that, about two years ago, some fifty thousand copies had been printed of an oration which had been delivered by an honorable member of that House, [Mr. ADAMS,] on a very important subject; he alluded to the Eulogy on Lafayette. Probably delicy should prevent his (Mr. P's) saying that that was a work of the first order of talent, and of sterling merit.

He was not aware that any man who voted for the printing of that vast number of copies had been rebuked or upbraided by his constituents; but that was a subject referring to things which had taken place many years ago; to the actions of a distinguished individual, now passed away from the theatre of human affairs, and to actions performed by him in the war of the Revolution. The matter, however, which was now submitted to the consideration of the House, was to be taken in a prospective view; it was to be taken with reference to future events in this country; and the House was to view this document with an eye to things that were to come hereafter. What document could be more important, or where could there be one to which their attention ought to be more anxiously directed?

Speaking in reference to those whom he immediately represented, he would say that there was not a man, woman, or child over twelve years of age, in the State from which he came, who had not exercised some mind upon the important subject to which this document had reference; and the question now was, whether the inform ation which this message contained should be communicated to them or not. It was a subject in relation to which, whatever might have been the notions of the mem. bers of that House at the last session of Congress, whatever might have been the feelings of gentlemen repre

[H. OF R.

senting certain portions of the Union, there had been a change of opinion, an alteration of sentiment. And whatever might have been the surmises and conjectures as to what would be the course of the distinguished indi vidual who now filled the executive chair, he (Mr. P.) presumed that those surmises and conjectures would now be found to have been without foundation. He submitted to the House, then, that this was no ordinary subject; that it was not one of common importance; it was, indeed, of more importance than most of the subjects which had been transmitted to Congress for its consideration during the present session; and if it was so, should they withhold from their constituents the stand which had been taken by the Executive of the United States? It was not for the purpose of petting a printer, or supporting a particular press, that he (Mr. P.) was desirous of increasing the number; that was a mere bagatelle, compared to the dissemination of the information contained in the document, and the stand which had been taken by this Government in relation to the affairs with Texas, so far, at least, as that stand could be inferred from the document before the House. Was the House to square its notions now by what its notions were in 1829? Was the country now what it was at that period? Had not our progress been onward? Had there been no expansion of settlement? no increase of population? But, independent of all such considerations, in 1829, for want of the facilities which existed at this day, six weeks would have been consumed in the transmission of information which could now be communicated in three or four days; then, indeed, these documents might have lain on the members' tables as worthless lumber. But now, by means of railroads, steamboats, and express mails, information, which could not then be communicated in six weeks, can now be sent from one end of the republic to the other in a few days. View the document prospectively, or in any other light, there was no subject at this particular juncture of so much importance; and should that House, looking merely to the expense, cause only five or six thousand copies to be printed, thus distributing the document only to one individual in every town or village? Whereas, by printing twenty thousand, it would go to some four or five persons, speaking, at least, of some of the States, in every town, village, and hamlet. He contended, then, that the ordinary rule applied to the printing of public documents was not applicable to this case. It, might, indeed, be said that the newspapers would publish the document; but it was one of that character which most persons would wish to put on file for preservation, not only for their own benefit, but for that of those who may succeed them, as containing the views of the President of the United States at this day. Mr. P. hoped that the motion to print twenty thousand copies would prevail.

Mr. HOAR expressed his accordance with the general views expressed by the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. E. WHITTLESEY,] on the subject of printing. But he did not concur with that gentleman in the opinion that those views should be applied to the present case. (Mr. H.) considered that a document on so important a subject, and coming from such a source, should be disseminated as widely as possible.

He

The subject had been treated by the President in a manner highly satisfactory to his (Mr. H's) views. The statement contained in the document should be in the hands of every man in the country. It deserved more than a cursory reading; it deserved to be printed in a form suited to its permanent preservation. He was in favor of printing the highest number proposed, and was even willing to vote for a greater number than that.

Mr. THOMPSON, of South Carolina, said he was not opposed to the printing of the proposed number. was willing that the views of those who approved of the

He