He attended it; but he had listened in vain. He was opposed to hasty changes in legislation, and never would adopt them without a strong probability of some benefit to follow. In the present case, the mover of the resolution had not been able to state a single evil or inconvenience arising from the existing practice. He had, indeed, placed the matter upon the ostensible ground, that the votes of every member would, by this means, be known to his constituents. Now, for his own part, he had never once heard it stated that any attempt had been made to conceal the course taken by gentlemen in elections in this House. Gentlemen had indeed told the House that the practice of voting viva voce prevailed in some of the States. This might be so but, wherever it did prevail, he believed it to have been originally adopted because the Representatives were not all able to read and write. That reason, he trusted, would not be held as operating in this House. presumed there was no danger of imposition here from the want of the votes being uttered in an audible voice One gentleman nad informed the House that the constitution of the State of Pennsylvania requires ail elections in the Legislature to be viva voce: if such were the fact, it was a very good argument for the practice in that Legislature, but he was unable to see how that bound the members of this House. But gentlemen had contended that, as the power exercised here is a delegated power, it is, therefore, proper, that those who gave it should know how it is exercised in the election of the officers of the House. Now, on this subject, he considered it fair to consult the expression of the people's will as contained in the constitution; and there he found that, when the people themselves are directing the mode of holding, by the members of this House, an election of far greater importance, viz: the election of a Chief Magistrate for the whole Union, they expressly say it shall be by ballot, and not viva voce. He would ask gentlemen whether the authority to elect a President is not a delegated authority? Whether it is not a more important election than that of the officers of this House? And whether it was not of more consequence that the people should know how every member voted in that case than in this? And if gentlemen object to this case as an extreme one, he would ask whether, in the regular election of Chief Magistrate by the electors of President, the people have not as plainly said that they shall choose by ballot, and not viva voce? Did not this clearly show what was their view of the matter? Did not this provision fully establish and sanction the principle on which the present practice is founded? If it holds in the greater case, should it not in the less? Can it be right in the one case, and wrong in the other? What case had gentlemen brought forward where any evil could be shown to have arisen? If none, where can be the necessity of any change? But a change was not only uncalled for and unnecessary; it would be positively and obviously pernicious. The great consumption of time it would occasion was not the only, or by any means the greatest evil attending it. Suppose the election to be for Speaker, and that there should be four candidates proposed: each member votes for his favorite, and the votes are nearly equal. When once the vote he has given is placed upon record, he feels himself pledged by that record to adhere to his man; and though, in other circumstances, he might give way, (as somebody must give way) yet, when his name is put on record, he will be much slower and more reluctant in doing so; his pride will be excited, and the election protracted, and very probably embittered by the effect of viva voce voting. The mere possibility to such a result on the one side, while no evil is shown to exist on the other, was, of itself, a good reason against altering the present mode of election He should therefore vote against the resolution, and against every other which, like this. went to alter what experience had proved to be attended with [H. of R. no evils, for the sake of introducing new-fangled and untried expedients, which carried mischief in their aspect. Mr. BARRINGER said he felt no inclination to intrude himself needlessly upon the attention of the House, and he believed that, since he had enjoyed the honor of a seat here, he had occupied as little of its time as any member on the floor. Nor should he have presented himself at this time to the attention of the House, had any one of the gentlemen who had hitherto addressed it, expressed in extenso his views in respect to the proposed resolution. It was not his purpose to trespass long at this time; but, on an occasion like the present, when he might be compelled to vote in opposition to many of those with whom he was in the habit of acting, he stood responsible to his constituents and to the nation, for an expression of the motives which would govern his conduct. If, indeed, he should feel himself controlled by the motives which had been presented by the gentleman from Kentucky, [Mr. WICKLIFFE or by the still more extraordinary doctrines advanced by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. RAMSEY] he should find himself in a very unpleasant predicament. The latter gentleman, it seemed, felt bound in conscience to support this resolution, because he had sworn to support the constitution of Pennsylvania. For his own part, he had always hitherto supposed that the constitution of a State, however sovereign that State might be, was subordinate in its authority to the constitution of the Union, and that the oath to support the latter, was paramount over members here, whenever the two might happen to come in collision. But if it were indeed true, that the conscience of gentlemen, as members of Congress, was to be controlled by any previous oath they had taken to support the constitution of their several States, then he should be obliged to oppose the gentleman from Pennsylvania on his own ground, because he had sworn to support the constitution of North Carolina, and that constitution required elections to be held by ballot. If this doctrine were admitted, his oath would bind him to do what he should otherwise do freely, because it was his own decided judgment that, to elect by ballot, was the preferable mode. The gentlemen from Kentucky and Pennsylvania, could not, therefore, but see to what a predicament this would reduce the House. If their arguments were to be admitted, then it was not possible that the members of the House could ever meet on the same ground. However, [said Mr. B.] I shall not place my vote, on this occasion, on the ground that I have been accustomed to the mode of electing by ballot. There are other considerations which, to my mind, are perfectly conclusive. It is not true as the gentleman from Kentucky has affirmed, that the speaker of this House stands in the same relation to us as we do to our constituents. I deny the fact, and if I cannot show that there is a broad and obvious distinction between them, I am greatly deceived. [Here Mr. WICKLIFFE interposed, and observed, by way of explanation, that he had said there was no distinction between the two cases] Mr. BARRINGER resumed. So I understood the gentleman: and it is that very ground, that there is no distinction between the cases, which I mean to combat. We are elected by the people, to do what? To enact laws, to prescribe rules by which we are to be governed. Is that the end for which a Speaker of this House is chosen? The Speaker makes no rules for us; it is we who dictate laws and prescribe rules for him. He is merely an executive officer, whose duty it is to carry into effect such regulations as we choose to lay down. In every part of his duty he is wholly subject to our will. His office is ministerial; ours is legislative. The House prescribes to him rules so plain that he who runs may read them; and whenever he deviates from any one of those rules, his decisions are subject to our revision, and he is himself amenable to our control. He is placed in that chair not to con trol the action of this House, not to interrupt it, far less performed. [JAN. 17, 1829. fied for the station, and so evenly balanced in attainments and in intellectual and moral character, that even their friends are scarcely able to draw a distinction in preference of one or the other-under these circumstances, the House proceeds to elect viva voce I, as a member of it, and one whose duty it is to exercise elective privilege, feel perfectly friendly to both candidates, believe that either of them would make a suitable and accomplished presiding officer, but fancy, after much reflection, that I can perceive in one of them some quality which just inclines the balance, and, when called to vote, I name him in preference to the other, and a single vote turns the scale. Will the gentleman from Kentucky tell me, or will he try to persuade this House, that the unsuccessful candidate who, by the change of a single vote, would have gained the election, will feel no secret unkindness towards me, when, through my vote, he lost so great an honor and distinction? No, sir, I know human nature better. He will feel my vote as an act of unkindness; or if, notwithstanding my vote, one of the candidates shall succeed in his election, will he forget who voted against him? No, sir, he will not forget it; and, when distributing the honors of the House, he will show that he has not, by giving every important and prominent station to those who were his friends, and casting those who opposed his election, so far as his appointing power shall enable him to do it, into the shade of oblivion. If this is not so, I have greatly miscalculated the nature of man; but it is so, and it ever will be so; and I, for one, am ready to risk every thing rather than advocate an arrangement which will place both the officer and the members in so unhappy a predicament. Yes, sir, I say that the plan will, in practice, be an unhappy one to the officer whom we elect, to us who elect him, and ultimately to the nation at large. And, sir, as the House does sometimes elect their Select Committees, and may, if they choose, elect all, as well as every officer of the House, the same argument will partially apply to all, and thus promote perpetual heart-burnings For what purpose such a plan can be urged upon us God only knows: for I will not willingly presume there is any hidden design in it. But, sir, we are not left on this subject to our own imagination. We are not under the necessity of guessing, and supposing what is the will of our constituents in this matter. They have fully manifested their view of this subject; they have indicated it by action; they have acted towards us on the supposition that we were men, and would continue to be men of like passions with others; that we are not now, and never in this world shall be, perfect beings, and, therefore, they have given us a written rule to govern our proceedings; they have laid down the great charter of their will and our duty-an instrument provided not for one limited period, or one set of public servants, but extending to all time, and controlling an unlimited succession of their public Representatives. Now, I have to ask the gentleman who advocate this resolution, which of the two they consider the more important, the election of a speaker of this House, or the election of a Chief Magistrate of these United States-that distinguished public officer, who holds in his hands the destinies of this country, except where the operation of this House shall present a barrier to his power? Sir, I need not ask the question: it can receive but one answer. Yet, what have the people said respecting the election of such an officer as that? They have expressly said that he shall be chosen by ballot. They, it seems, have not that confidence in human nature which the gentleman from Kentucky possesses in such a very liberal measure. If we ever determine to elect our officers viva voce (which may God forbid) such inconvenience will result from it, as will speedily compel this House to retrace its steps. Sir, when I pray that God may forbid this, it is not from any personal objection which I feel to having my own conduct fully known, If any gentleman wishes to exercise an espionage over my exercise of the privilege of voting, he is at full liberty to see every ballot I put into the box. I oppose the change on principle, and I feel perfectly sure that, if the experiment shall be made, there will be but one election holden under such a rule. Sir, the gentleman from Kentucky presumes much upon the perfection of human nature, when he maintains that a gentleman would be unworthy of a seat in that chair, who would cherish any thing like unkind feelings towards those who would oppose his elevation to it. We are men for tunately for us we are all but men and while we continue such, we shall remain subject to the passions and infirmities which belong to our being. The gentleman might just as well have asserted that an elevation to that chair does ipso facto annihilate all feeling and passion in the human breast, as to have asserted that it is impossible a successful candidate should feel any thing like unkindness towards those whom he knows to have been his opponents. The fact is not so God forbid that it should be so. God forbid that any station or honor should render its possessor insensible to kindness, and dead to friendship and gratitude Suppose, for a moment, that every thing like political party were utterly annihilated, (and there is much ground to hope that this will, ere long, be literally the case; that we shall lay aside our emulations and animosities, and all coalesce into one great party for the public weal) and suppose further, that, at the opening of the next Congress, there shall be two candidates for the chair, perfect-ple, have so little confidence in the perfections even of y agreeing in their political principles, equally well quali- you, our Representatives, that, although we give you the Sir, the gentleman should have taught the people better. They have said that the President, whether chosen by electors or chosen in this House, shall be chosen, not viva voce, but by ballot; they have said to us, we, the peo JAN. 19, 1829] Georgia Claims.-Washington and Frederick Turnpike.-Cumberland Road. Let I might, perhaps, now, proceed to the discussion of many particulars involved in this subject, for many such are pressing on my mind; but I am not willing to consume the time of the House, and I will forbear. I have but touched the general outline of what I considered the leading points in this question. It is a question which I consider very important; but, however sensible of its intrinsic weight, I disclaim every thing like personal feeling on the subject. If, indeed, I were in the minority in the House, I might be expected to be so influenced; but seeing I am in the majority, what reason have I too seek to restrain, in any manner, the action of the House? Restrictions are for small minorities, but men do not usually throw themselves into a minority from choice; they are usually much more disposed to swim with the current than to breast the shock of adverse waves. A majority surely need not place such extraordinary guards upon itself. They are only for the purpose of controlling a minority, and few adhere to a minority for the mere pleasure of doing so. In conclusion, permit me to remark, that, whether the House shall determine to ellect viva voce, or by ballot, I have not the smallest desire to conceal the vote that I shall give. It has never been my practice to conceal either my sent iments or my purpose. I have ever spoken out-I shall continue to speak out; and if any gentleman feels a curiosity to see my ballot, he is welcome to inspect it before I put it into the ballot box.. As to the extravagant supposition put by the Representative from Pennsylvania, [Mr. RAMSEY] of the great difficulty experienced by a constituent in one corner of the State, in finding out how his Representative, who resides in the opposite corner, voted in any particular election, and of the hardship of being obliged to travel two hundred or three hundred miles to make that discovery, the gentleman surely must have forgotten that there is such a thing, in most of the States, as the public press; that the existence of such an in [H. OF R. My strument makes that discovery a very easy thing. constituents, I know, have addressed queries to me, through the papers, which I have answered through the same medium; and, if I mistake not, the gentleman from Pennsylvania himself has not been without some items that his constituents possess the faculty of writing, and that they know the mode of finding out how their Representative has voted on dubious questions. But I have done. The resolution is one which I think ought not to pass, and it shall receive my decided negative. Mr TAYLOR said that it must be apparent to all, that it would be very inconvenient to continue this discussion from morning to morning, as it was now proceeding; it reminded him of the long debate which had occurred at a former session, and which had regularly consumed the time of the House for thirty mornings in succession; that, like this, was on a subject which ought regularly to have been referred to one of the Committees of the House. It was incompatible with the respect which the House owed to itself to continue a discussion like this from day to day, and from week to week. It was only calculated to excite unpleasant feelings, and agitate the House, without ending in any good. His wish was, that the resolution, if possible, might be laid upon the table, with the express understanding that it should not be taken up again during the residue of the session; but if this could not be effected, and a majority of the House should determine to act upon it, then his wish would be, that it should at least be referred to a Committee of the Whole House, and there discussed in a regular manner. In the mean time, with a view to ascertain what was the intention of the House, he moved that the resolution be laid upon the table; on which motion he demanded the yeas and nays. They were ordered by the House. Mr. WILDE inquired of the Chair whether the consideration of the resolution itself was strictly in order, inasmuch as a similar proposition was contained in a report of a Committee now on the files of the House, and not yet acted upon. The SPEAKER decided that the consideration was in order. The yeas and nays were then taken on Mr. TAYLOR'S motion, and stood as follows: Yeas 97, nays 92. So the resolution was laid upon the table. GEORGIA CLAIMS. The motion of Mr. THOMPSON, to reverse the decision of the Indian Committee on the Georgia Claims coming up as the unfinished business of yesterday. Mr. THOMPSON demanded that the question be taken by yeas and nays, and it was so ordered by the House. After considerable debate, the farther consideration of the bill was postponed to Friday. MONDAY, JANUARY, 19, 1829. WASHINGTON AND FREDERICK TURNPIKE. The question on the amendment moved by Mr. WASHINGTON on the 14th inst, to fill the blank with four thousand five hundred, as the number of shares to be subscribed by the United States, was put and carried. Mr. McDUFFIE then moved an amendinent, the effect of which was, that the subscription of stock, on the part of the United States, in said company, shall not be made until "the Legislature of Maryland, with the consent of the Washington Turnpike Company, shall so amend the charter of the said Company, as to authorize the President of the United States to appoint five of its managers." . This amendment was adopted by the House. The bill then underwent some further amendment, and the blank in the last section of the bill was filled up with ninety thousand dollars, as the appropriation for payment of the subscription of the United States. As thus amended the question was put on the engrossment of the bill, and decided as follows: Yeas 99, nays 82. CUMBERLAND ROAD. The House then went into Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union. The Committee, on motion of Mr MERCER, proceeded to consider the bill for the preservation and repair of the Cumberland road-the amendment offered by Mr. BUCHANAN, which went to strike out the first seven sections of the bill, and to provide, in substance, that the several parts of the road passing through different States should be ceded to those States, provided they would erect toll gates upon it, and keep it in repair, being under consideration. Mr. BUCHANAN said that the bill and the amendment now before the Committee, presented a subject for discussion of the deepest interest to the American people. It is not a question [said Mr. B ] whether we shall keep the road in repair by annual appropriation; nor whether we shall expend other millions in constructing other Cumberland roads; these would be comparatively unimportant; but it is a question, upon the determination of which, in my humble judgment, depends the continued existence of the Federal constitution, in anything like its native purity. Let it once be established that the Federal Government can enter the dominion of the States; interfere with their domestic concerns; erect toll gates over all the military, commercial, and post roads, within their territories, and define and punish, by laws of Congress, in the courts of the United States, offences committed upon these roads; and the barriers, which were erected by our ancestors with so much care, between Federal and State power, are entirely prostrated. This single act would, in itself, be a longer stride towards consolidation than the Federal Government have ever made; and it would be a precedent for establishing a construction for the Federal constitution so vague, and so indefinite, that it might be made to mean any thing, or nothing. It is not my purpose, upon the present occasion, again to agitate the questions which have so often been discussed in this House, as to the powers of Congress in regard to Internal Improvements. For my own part, I cheerfully accord to the Federal Government the power of subscribing stock, in companies incorporated by the States, for the purpose of making roads and canals: and I entertain no doubt whatever, but that we can, under the constitution, appropriate the money of our constituents directly to the construction of Internal Improvements, with the consent of the States through which they may passed. These powers I shall ever be willing to exercise, upon all proper occasions. But I shall never be driven to support any road or any canal, which my judgment disapproves, by a fear of the senseless clamor which is always attempted to be raised against members upon this floor, as enemies to Internal Improvement, who dare to vote against any measure which the Committee on Roads and Canals think proper to bring before this House. It was my intention to discuss the power of Congress to pass the bill, and its policy, separately. Upon reflection, I find these subjects are so intimately blended, they cannot easily be separated. I shall, therefore, consider them together, Before, however, I enter upon the subject, it will be necessary to present a short historical sketch of the Cumberland road. It owes its origin to a compact between the State of Ohio and the United States. In 1802, Congress proposed to the convention which formed the constitution of Ohio, that they would grant to that State one section of land in each township, for the use of schools; that they would also grant to it several tracts of land on [JAN. 19, 1829. which there were salt springs; and that five per cent of the net proceeds of the future sales of public lands within its territory should be applied to the purpose of making public roads," leading from the navigable waters emptying into the Atlantic to the Ohio, to the said State, and through the same." The act, however, distinctly declares that such roads shall be laid out under the authority of Congress, "with the consent of the several States through which the road shall pass." These terms were offered by Congress, to the State of Ohio, provided she would exempt, by an irrevocable ordinance, all the land which should be sold by the United States within her territory, from every species of taxation, for the space of five years after the day of sale. This proposition of Congress was accepted by the State of Ohio; and it thus became a compact, the terms of which could not be changed without the consent of both the contracting parties. By the terms of the compact, this five per cent. of the net proceeds of the sales of the public land was applicable to two objects: the first, the construction of roads leading from the Atlantic to the State of Ohio; and the second, the construction of roads within that State. In 1803, Congress, at the request of Ohio, apportioned this fund between these two objects. Three of the five per cent. was appropriated to the construction of roads with the State; leaving only two per cent. applicable to roads leading from the navigable waters of the Atlantic to it. In March, 1806, Congress determined to apply this two per cent. fund to the object for which it was destined, and passed "An act to regulate the laying out and making of a road from Cumberland,in the State of Maryland, to the State of Ohio." Under the provisions of this act, before the President could proceed to cut a single tree upon the route of the road, it was made necessary to obtain the consent of the States through which it passed. The Federal Government asked Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia, for permission to make it, and each of them granted this privilege in the same manner that they would have done to a private individual, or to a corporation created by their own laws. Congress, at that day, asserted no other right than a mere power to appropriate the money of their constituents to the construction of this road, after the consent of these States should be obtained. The idea of a sovereign power in this Government to make the road, and to exercise jurisdiction over it, for the purpose of keeping it in repair, does not, then, appear to have ever entered the imagination of the warmest advocate for federal power. The federalism of that day would have shrunk with horror from such a spectre. There is a circumstance worthy of remark in the act of the Legislature of Pennsylvania, which was passed in April, 1807, authorizing the President of the United States to open this road. It grants this power upon condition that the road should pass through Uniontown and Washington, if practicable? The grant was accepted upon this condition, and the road was constructed. Its length is one hundred and thirty miles, and its construction and repairs have cost the United States one million seven hundred and sixty-six thousand one hundred and sixty-six dollars and thirty-eight cents; whilst the two per cent. fund which we had bound ourselves to apply to this purpose, amounted, on the 30th of June, 1822, the date of the last official statement within my knowledge, only to the sum of one hundred and eighty-seven thousand seven hundred and eighty-six dollars and thirty-one cents; less than one-ninth of the cost of the road. This road has cost the United States more than thirteen thousand five hundred dollars per mile. This extravagant expenditure shows, conclusively, that it is much more politic for us to enlist individual interest in the cause of Internal Improvement, by subscribing stock, than to become ourselves sole proprietors. Any Government, unless under extraordinary circumstances, will pay one-third more for constructing a road or canal, than would be expended by individuals in accomplishing the same object. I shall now proceed to the argument. Upon a review of this brief history, what is the conclusion at which we must arrive? That this road was made by the United States, as a mere proprietor, to carry into effect a contract with the State of Ohio, and not as a sovereign. In its construction, the Federal Government proceeded as any corporation or private individual would have done. We asked the States for permission to make the road through the territories over which their sovereign authority extended. After that permission had been obtained, we appropriated the money, and constructed the road. The State of Pennsylvania even annexed a condition to her grant, with which the United States complied. She also conferred upon the agents of the United States the power of taking materials for the construction and repair of this road, without the consent of the owner, making a just compensation therefor. This compensation was to be ascertained under the laws of the State, and not under those of the United States. The mode of proceeding to assess damages in such cases against the United States was precisely the same as it is against corporations, created by her own laws, for the purpose of constructing roads. [H. or R. ler's person in another, would be almost an absurdity. The Federal Government would probably, ere long, exercise the power of trying and punishing murders and robbe ries, and all other offences committed upon the road. To what jurisdiction would the trial and punishment of these offences necessarily belong? To the courts of the United States, and to them alone. In Ohio, in New York, in Virginia, and in Maryland, it has been determined that State courts, even if Congress should confer it, have no jurisdiction over any penal action, or criminal offence, against the laws of the United States. Even if these decisions were incorrect, still it has never been seriously contended that State courts were bound to take jurisdiction in such cases. It must be admitted by all, that Congress have not the power to compel an execution of their criminal or penal laws by the courts of the States. This is sufficient for my argument. Even if the power existed, in State courts, they never ought, unless upon extraordinary occasions, to try and to punish offences committed against the United States. The peace and the harmony of the people of this country require that the powers of the two Governments should never be blended. The dividing line between their separate jurisdictions should be clearly marked; otherwise dangerous collisions between them must be the inevitable consequence. In two of the States, through which this road passes, it has already been determined that their courts cannot take jurisdiction over offences committed against the laws of Congress. What, then, is the inevitable consequence? All the penal enactments of this bill, or of the future bills. which it will become necessary to pass to supply its defects, must be carried into execution by the Federal courts. Any citizen of the United States, charged with the most trifling offence against the police of this road, must be dragged for trial to the Federal court of that State within whose jurisdiction it is alleged to have been committed. If committed in Maryland, the trial must take place in Baltimore; if in Pennsylvania, at Pittsburg; and if in Vir What, then, does this precedent establish? Simply, that the United States may appropriate money for the construction of a road through the territories of a State, with its consent; and I do not entertain the least doubt but that we possess this power. What does the present bill propose? To change the character which the United States has hitherto sustained, in relation to this road, from that of a simple proprietor to a sovereign. To declare to the nation, that, although they had to ask the States of Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia, for permission to make the road, now, after it is completed, they will exercise jurisdiction over it, and collect tolls upon it, under the authority of their own laws, for the purpose of keeping it in repair. We will not ask the States to erect toll gates for We are determined to exercise that power ourselves.ginia, at Clarksburg. The Federal Government first introduced itself into the States as a friend, by permission; it now wishes to hold possession as a sovereign, by power. us. This road was made in the manner that one independent sovereign would construct a road through the territories of another. Had Virginia been a party to the compact with Ohio, instead of the United States, she would have asked the permission of Maryland and Pennsylvania to construct the Cumberland road through their territories, and it would have been granted But what would have been our astonishment, after this permission, had Virginia attempted to assume jurisdiction over the road in Pennsylvania, to erect toll gates upon it under the authority of her own laws, and to punish offenders against these laws in her own courts. Yet the two cases are nearly parallel. The distance of one hundred or two hundred miles, which he would be compelled to travel to take his trial, and the expenses which he must necessarily incur, would, in themselves, be a severe punishment for a more aggra vated offence. Besides, the people of the neighborhood would be harassed in attending as witnesses at such a great distance from their places of abode. These, and many other inconveniences, which I shall not enumerate, would soon compel Congress to authorize the appointment of Justices of the peace, or some other inferior tribunals, along the whole extent of the Cumberland road. Can any man lay his hand upon his heart and say that, in his conscience, he believes the Federal constitution ever intended to bestow such powers on Congress? The great divisions of power, distinctly marked in that instrument, The right to demand toll, and to stop and punish pas- are external and internal. The first are conferred upon sengers for refusing to pay it, is emphatically a sovereign the General Government-the last, with but few excepright, and has ever been so considered amongst civilized tions, and those distinctly defined, remain in possession of nations. The power to erect toll gates necessarily im- the States. It never-never was intended that the vast plies, 1st. The stoppage of the passenger until he shall and mighty machinery of this Government should be intropay the toll. 2d. His trial and punishment, if he should, duced into the domestic, the local, the interior concerns of either by force or by fraud, evade, or attempt to evade, its the States, or that it should spend its power in collecting payment. 3d. A discretionary power as to the amount of toll at a turnpike gate. I have not been presenting possitoll. 4th. The trial and punishment of persons who may ble cases to the committee. I have confined myself to wilfully injure the road, or violate the police established what must be the necessary effects of the passage of the bill upon it. These powers are necessarily implied. With- now before us. By what authority is such a tremendous out the exercise of them, you could not proceed with safe- power claimed? That it is not expressly given by the ty to collect the toll for a single day. Other powers will constitution, is certain. If it exists at all, it must, theresoon be exercised. If you compel passengers to pay toll, fore, be incidental to some express power; and, in the lanthe power of protecting them whilst travelling along your guage of the constitution, "be necessary and proper for road is almost a necessary incident. The sovereign, who carrying that power into execution." From the very nature receives the toll, ought naturally to possess the power of of incidental power, it cannot transcend the specific power protecting him who pays it. To vest the power of demand- which calls it into existence. The stream cannot flow highing toll in one sovereign, and the protection of the traveler than its fountain. This principle applies, with pecu VOL. V.-31 |