« AnteriorContinuar »
JAN. 22, 1829.]
(H. of R.
that of a territory, for example, this authority would not which the less-the grant or the incident–in the present necessarily be invested with the competency in question. argunent? The grant assumed was of a power io conNow, this was the character of the political authority of the struct (roads) facilities of physical communication and Government of the United States It was not endued with passage ; the incident asserted, the right to levy tolls, the general, resulting, incidental attributes of an ordinary involved several elements. The gentleman from Pennpresiding political authority. These attributes, and this sylvania [Mr. BUCHANAN) had stated them with much character of political authority, resided, and was recog- clearness and force. This right involved, 1st, a power nized as residing, with the States only, and not in the to tax; 2d, to coerce for the payment of the tax; 3d, to General Government. The Generai Government was only punish for injuries to the road; 4ih, to establish magisthe special grantee of defined powers, and the fair inci- trates and tribunals for the cognizance of these reguladents of such as had been so defined. How did the ordi- tions ; 5th, to provide and maintain adequate force, (iniliDary presiding authority of a State get the power to open tary if need be) to give effect to these several branches or construct roads, and levy tolls on them? Roads were of jurisdiction. Nearly the entire of functions and powan essential part of social arrangement. It might be ne ers entering into the composition of general political aucessary to turnpike, and then it would be just to impose thority were comprehended. Could this mass of superior colis on thems There must be some authority to do this, powers be claimed as the incident of a power to construct as the incident of social community ; and the authority a road? If it could, the grant of a power to construct a must be that which presided over ihe community, with road was out of all proportion to the magnitude which its the general, resulting, essential powers of sovereignty ; aspect imported, equivalent to a grant to set up a distinct that is to say, all powers appertaining to just political au- | imperium in a State, or as many of these imperio as there thority, which were not prohibited by the expressed pub- were roads. In such a mode if inference the fable was lic will. The power to authorize a levy of tolls on a road, reversed, and not the mouse of the mountain, but the therefore, belonged to the ordinary Government of a State, mountain became the offspring of the mouse. This reasonjust in the same way as that to authorise the construction ing (Mr. A. said) was not speculative merely. It had been of the road ; not one as the attribute or incident of the decided by the courts that State officers and judicatures other, but both as the attributes or incidents in common; were not compellable to take cognizance and give effect to and standing on the same footing, of its general undefined legal provisions of the United States, as had been remarked character of sovereignty. The community had a control by the gentleman (Mr. Buchanan) from Pennsylvania. superior to all property over its soil, as its members. This The exercise of this jurisdiction, on the part of the State ultimate control its Government represented ; and it was a authority, could be voluntary only. part of this ultimate authority, to tax the use of roads, as The United States' regulations, then, in relation to these it was to open them; and to authorize their opening and roads, could not be left to this contingency for enforceconstruction, on the condition of their use being subject ment. The constancy and certainty of their operation to a tax. The two powers (Mr. A. repeated] stood on the was too essential. Interests and feelings might arise in same precise footing as regarded their derivation, and not the States, unsavorable to their enforcement, which must, the power to tax the road as an incident to the power to in such circumstances, be unequal, precarious, and irreguauthorize its construction, to which the first was in no re- | lar. But it had also been decided not to be in the compespect subordinate. The power, then, to authorize the tency of State authorities, if in their option, to take cogconstruction of roads, supposing it to reside in the General nizance of offences against the laws of the United States ; Government, did not carry with it the power to impose as it would be a solecism for one jurisdiction to entertain tolls on them, as its incident. If the General Government control of crimes against another. Then, for cognizance had this authority, it must be derived from some other of the turnpike regulations of the United States, (every one source. The General Government could not derive it as of them necessarily involving penalties) special magistrates the State did, as a resulting attribute of sovereignty. This and courts must be provided, or intolerable inconvenience source of authority, it had been seen, was not accessible to incurred, in attendance on those which were subsisting, the Government of the Union, being oniy the grantee of from their remoteness; and adequate force (military, if the specific powers and their incidents, under the constitution civil should be disaffected or indifferent) must be mainby which it was created. The only source of this jurisdic- tained: for the enforcement of this jurisdiction should in tion, then, to the General Government, must be one of no instance be executed, unless accompanied by sufficient these specific powers. But it had no relation which could sanctions. It might be necessary to augment the army, be pretended to either of these, with the exception of the when roads became multiplied as largely as was contempower to “establish post roads,” (which, it had been seen, plated by those who contended for the power to make did not carry it) unless it were the general power of taxa- them, to give a steady and uniform operation to complition. In this last aspect it should presently be considered. cated turnpike regulations. What Mr. A. had been endeavoring to show was, that it The right to exercise this sdiction by tolls, &c. was did not flow from the power to “establish” or construct furthermore repelled by its incongruity with the just imroads, as had been argued.
port of more than one provision of the constitution. Tolls It was to be remembered, then, that the Government of were taxes. The power to levy them was, then, a power the United States, in relation to its power to authorize the to lay taxes. But the power of taxation had been subjectconstruction of roads, (as every other branch of its jurisdic- ed to specific restrictions by the constitution. Direct taxés tion) standing on the tooting of a mere grantee, its claims were to observe a rule of apportionment to population. of incidental jurisdiction were to be tested by the esta “ All duties, imposts, and excises" were to be “uniform blished principles of construction in reference to legal throughout the United States.” Tolls were duties. Tolls grants. It was the first of these principles, that a grant of passage had been adduced as one of the examples of carried for its incidents only essential and not merely con the duties subject to this rule of uniformity, in a case in venient facilities. Tried by this test, the right to levy tolls the Supreme Court of the United States. But how was could not be considered essential to the exercise or use of it possible for tolls to be levied uniformly? The tolls on a power to authorize the construction of roads. It was a this road (the Cumberland) would be like imposts laid profitable appendage, or accident, not an indispensable, in- on one port only of the Union. Suppose a number of separable incident.
roads, and a general system of tolls, still the tolls could But neither could grants carry incidents of greater not be uniform, but must vary with a multiplicity of cirmagnitude and operation than themselves. The less could cumstances, affecting the cost of the roads and their chapot include the greater. Which was the greater and racter. The rule of direct taxation, (of being propor
H. OF R.]
(Jan 22, 1-29.
tionate to population) to which, however, as being indirect lation was not exclusive, as the advocates of this authority taxes, they would not owe conformity, they must violate contended, but only paramount to the State jurisdiction : invariably; as impositions of this character, to attain these that is to say, that it was still in the competency of the objects, must be augmented according to the sparseness, State authority to operate over, though not on, the subject, not the density, of population.
the soil of the road ; were the inferences from the arguAll the roads of the country were liable to be subjected ment varied materially? The United States must still to this jurisdiction. All were liable to be converted to prescribe regulations, denounce penalties, inflict punishpost roads.
A large proportion had been already, to an ment, and must, in this event, find it necessary to establish extent of more than one hundred thousand miles. It was distinct officers, and judicatures, and force, to give effect to to be hoped that the extension would be progressive every its jurisdiction The necessity of this had been already day. If tolls were to be levied on all these, every man shown, and was as indisputable, in relation to a mere turngoing to market must experience the influence; and the pike jurisdiction, acting on, and for the road, as if the jurispower to impose them amounted to a faculty of control of diction were entirely absorbent of every other, and exinternal commerce expressly withheld from this Govern- clusive. That this last was its true character, the ineviment by the constitution Congress was authorized to table result of the claim asserted, Mr. A. continued to " regulate commerce with foreign nations, among the sev- insist, from the inherent nature of territorial jurisdiction. eral States, and with the Indian tribes," and no other. By And then see (he said] to what extent it might be made to the jurisdiction in question, a power of the most momentous reach. All public roads in the country might be subjected character and extensive operation, the most oppressive in to it, existing, or as they came successively into existence. its abuse, and explicitly denied by the constitution, would But“ exclusive" jurisdiction was not lost over a subject be acquired. It was said that the pressure and mischief of which was abandoned, without express renunciation. this jurisdiction might be avoided by the resort to new Relinquishment of the road would not operate relinquishroads, as those established were subjected to it. But how ment of the jurisdiction. This was an uncontested princidid this suggestion elude the objection to a power which ple in relation to the exclusive jurisdiction of the United could pursue their retreat at pleasure, and fasten its yoke States. The General Government might then pursue the on the new subjects as on the old ? Exemption held by acquisition of jurisdiction on the newly established roads, such a tenure was not enfranchisement and safety.
as they came into being, without the loss of it on those This jurisdiction of the United States over the roads they ceased to use. The turnpiking operation gave the they might "establish,” by construction or adoption, if it jurisdiction ; its nature, as exclusive, made it permanent belonged to them, must be exclusive jurisdiction. A great (unless renounced.) The General Government might then deal had been written and said, especially in the Supreme get, not in compact body, indeed, but in strips, an extent Court of the United States, on the subject of the concur of exclusive jurisdiction within the States, limited only by rent jurisdiction of the States and the United States. All its discretion. Well, then, might the gentleman from New this was entirely illusory. It had been decided, over and York (Mr. STRONG] refer this claim of jurisdiction to the over again, that where the two jurisdictions could not per- extensive authority over the territory and property of the fectly stand together, that of the State was to submit. United States, given to Congress by the constitution. Was the same subject of taxation selected by both, for ex- “Congress shall have power to dispose of, and make all ample, and found inadequate, the State demand was post- needful rules and regulations respecting, the territory or poned to the Federal. This might be right ; [it was not other property belonging to the United States.". If the the present question] but it was evident that jurisdiction, jurisdiction in contest be admitted, it may be added that in this predicament, had nothing of concurrent character “Congress shall furthermore have power” to convert porbut the name ; one of them was paramount, the other subal- tions of the soil of the States, ad libitum, into this charactern. At any rate, the jurisdiction asserted for the United ter, of “territory and property belonging to the United States over the roads they might reduce to turnpike sub-States," and so bring them under this clause of disposing jection, could be no other than exclusive. The reason had and arbitrary authority in the constitution. Congress will been given, and illustrated by a happy analogy, by his thus have a specific motive to make large acquisitions of friend and colleague, who preceded him (Mr. BARBOUR.) this form of property, that they may “ dispose of it," if This was a territorial jurisdiction, and all territorial juris- their previous tax on it, in the way of tolls, should prove diction, from its nature, must be exclusive, that is to say, inadequate to their wishes or occasions. The only answer incompatible with any other. Territorial jurisdiction to these consequences is, that such excesses in the extenoperated not only over the soil, but on it. Extraneous sion of its authority are not to be apprehended from Conmust, therefore, of necessity, be interfering regulation. gress, from the directness of its responsibility to the people ; Unless, therefore, all jurisdiction over the subject was to precisely the same safeguard which we should enjoy, if we perish in this conflict of jurisdictions, that which prevailed had no constitution imposing limitations on the authority must extrude that which conflicted, and be exclusive of Congress. This, then, was the character of the jurisdiction claimed This authority, then [said Mr. A.], claimed on behalf of for this Government over the roads on which it should de- the Government of the United States, to exercise a territotermine to levy tolls. The constitution had enumerated rial jurisdiction on the roads which it had power to estabthe subjects to which this exclusive authority should ex- lish, stood repelled by a just developement of its character tend, even down to the very buildings over which it could and results. The general idea on which the claim rested be exerted—"all places purchased by the consent of the was, that the power to make a road vested a property in State in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, the soil which the road covered, involving authority to premagazines, arsenals, dock yards, and other needful build serve and repair it by the exercise (if need be) of a terriings,” &c. This subject of roads was not included. torial jurisdiction. But this idea was fallacious. The powThough larger, not only than any of the subjects enumera er to make a road did not vest the ultimate domain of proted, but the whole in mass, the doctrine in discussion went, perty in the soil, even where the road was made, by pubin its effect, to include them; and that without any condi- lic authority, in Governments where that authority was tion of purchase” “ by the consent of the State in which most extensive. Mr. A. referred here to the known printhe same shall be,” to which the acquisition of jurisdictionciple of civil and common law, that the ultimate property of this character was bound to conform by the law of its in the soil covered by a public highway resided in ihe conpermission in the constitution.
tiguous proprietors; the proof of which was, that, in the But suppose that the jurisdiction of the United States event of the change of the course of the highway, or reover the roads to which they should extend turnpike regu- linquishment, the contiguous proprietors resumed their
Jan. 22, 1829.]
(H. OF R.
* full” proprietary rights over the soil, without release orgument of a gentleman from New York, (Mr. STORRS] further concession, which could not be done if this full which had appeared to make some impression upon the proprietary right had been divested, and transferred to Committee. That gentleman had contended that the juthe public authority. The right which the public acquired risdiction, as related to this particular road—the right to was precisely that which it acquired in a private build- set up gates, and levy tolls on it-belonged to the Governing, of which the occupation was requisite during a siege ; ment, by a compact, antecedent, and, therefore, paranot of ultimate, complete property, but of use, during the mount to the constitution. How did he make out the continuance of the occasion which deinanded it. The dif case ? Virginia had, by compact, previous to the constiference was, that the occasion, in the case of the road, was tution, conveyed her western domain to the national of more continuing and enduring character, which gave authority, with the condition that it should be employed to the occupation the aspect of cornplete property. The for national purposes, which grant and condition had exercise of a territorial jurisdiction, therefore, for the pre- been accepted. The proceeds of a portion of this domain servation and repair of the roads it might construct, (if on had been appropriated to the construction of this naly the result of a supposed property in the soil) could not tional road, and, therefore, the gentleman' from New be claimed even for Governments of the largest authority. York drew the inference, not only that the construction When such a Government exerted this branch of its juris- of this road was authorized as a pursuance of the comdiction, it was on the same ground as that on which it ex pact, but the exercise of the jurisdiction in question, to levy erted the function of construction of the road ; that is to tolls on it, also. The first and obvious answer was, that say, as a distinct independent attribute of its sovereignty, this conclusion was not warranted by the premises. The and not merely as an incidental consequences of this func-obligation, however overruling, to make applications of a tion to construct. The earth, and stone, and timber, were fund to general, undefined purposes, imported no necessacondemned and taken for the repair, by an exercise of the ry sanction, to any and every mode of application of evesame character of authority by which they were condemn- ry part of the fund, independently of all other consideraed and taken, in the previous instance, for the construc tion. Still less could it be considered as sanctioning, tion of the road. The Government of the United States, and authorizing the exercise of political jurisdiction, of it had been seen, could not claim the exercise of this form any form, over the subject of the particular application of authority. It could only exert the function of construct of the fund. An authority to disburse a fund, with no deing roads as a special grantee, and could not, therefore, finition of specific objects, did not sanction, in all events, condemn and take materials from the soil: that is to say, its application to the construction of a road, and, still exercise a territorial jurisdiction for preservation and re less, to the exertion of an authority to impose tolls on the pair, which was no incident of such a function. This dis- road. The gentleman from New York had fortified his tinction was recognized by invariable practice. The ina argument, by a reference to the act of the Legislature of terials for the preservation and repair of the State high- | Virginia, (of 1807) by which she gave consent to the pasways, made and kept up by the real sovereign Govern- sage of this road through her limits. He had supposed ments of the soil, the States, were taken from the contigu- that this act contained expressions authorizing the partious lands by legal authority. An incorporated company cular exercise of the jurisdiction iu question. For proof had to obtain its materials for the same purposes, not by le of the error of fact, into which he had fallen, in this regal authority, but by voluntary contract with the proprie- spect, Mr. A. referred to the argument of his friend who tors. The General Government, standing on this last fool had preceded him, [Mr. BARBOUR] who had explained the ing, in relation to its roads, had to resort to the same mode just import and interpretation of the language which had of obtaining the materials of repair. The incidental right been referred to in that statute. of preservation and repair, which was asserted, was not But if the fact had been sustainable, the answer to the denied, and was incontestable ; it was only denied that this principle of the reasoning was yet more decisive. If a right extended, in the hands of the General Government, compact, such as supposed, had been ratified, in the most to a territorial jurisdiction. The reason of the grant of a specific form, either previously or subsequently to the power to construct roads did not extend to the grant of constitution, it was void, as superseded by the constituthe same amount of authority for their reparation. The tion. As regarded the instance of previous compact, the authority was exhausted by exertion in the case of the con- principle was, that antecedent were superseded by subsestruction of the road. It would be continuous and unlimi- quent inconsistent compacts between the same parties ; ted as related to the reparation. I might be willing to and especially, when the subsequent compact was of paragrant my earth, and stone, and timber, once, but not inde mount character to every other, as the compact of Governfinitely, as to time and amount, when they might have be
It is only where the parties and subjects are come scarce, and of greater value ; and if the grant were not the same, that the antecedent can stand against the to involve a consequence so much larger than itself, the subsequent. Here the parties were the same --Virginia presumption would be, that the consequence, if foreseen, contracting with the other States of the Federation, would have obviated the grant. The separable character through their common representative, the Government of a power to preserve and repair, by the exercise of a ter of the United States. The subject, too, was the same, ritorial jurisdiction, from thai to construct roads, had been and the compacts inconsistent. What was the alleged recognized in relation to this very Cumberland road. A dis- subject of the compact of Virginia, referred to ? A partinct act had been passed by the Legislature of Pennsylva- ticular exercise of jurisdiction by the General Governmia to give the power to repair. This was evidence of the ment, (the levy of tolls on this road.) And what was the necessity of the separate grant of the power. Maryland general subject of the compact of the constitution? The and Virginia had not passed similar acts, however.* The ascertainment, by explicit and elaborate provision, of the power was not yet vested, therefore, in the General Gov- entire amount and forms of the jurisdiction, of every kind, ernment, supposing that it was within the competency of which might, thereafter, be exercised by the General these States to vest it by their concession.
Government. The subject of this larger, and more imBut was it in the competency of the State Govern- posing compact, comprehended that of the previous comments to vest such a jurisdiction, or any jurisdiction, not pact, and was inconsistent with its separate subsistence and given in the constitution, by separate and several conces- efficiency. A general precise definition of all jurisdiction, sions? And this led to the notice (said Mr. A.] of an ar to be exercised prospectively, swallowed up the pre
existent grant of a particular exercise, just as the pre-ex* Mr. A. has recently been informed that a similar act has been istent articles of confederation, containing large grants of passed by Maryland.
jurisdiction, merged in the constitution. The argument
H. OF R.]
(Jan 22, 1829.
would be still stronger, in relation to compacts con of the laws, when Philip was employed in oppressing the veying grants of jurisdiction, posterior in their formation co-inembers of the Grecian league, was no less at hand. to the constitution. The supremacy of the constitution, The modes were various in which undue power might be exin this respect, was not contested. How perilous, too, erted, through the forms and medium of regular authoriwas the character of this doctrine of the tolerance of se ty, injuriously or destructively. This was the usual mode parate several compacts, for the transfer of jurisdiction, through which injustice or oppression were perpetrated on between the Federal and State authorities. A union of individuals, in Governments having the aspect of a refederation had two essential conditions—a fixed reparti- gular and legal character. The facility of doing this was tion and adjustment of jurisdiction, between the general one of the strongest groundworks of the strict limitation of and constituent authorities; and the entire equality, as re power.
As it could not be denied that the General Golated to the amount and character, of jurisdiction retain- vernment, if allowed to form compacts with the States ed by these constituent authorities. If no repetition of separately, for jurisdiction, might make accessions of powjurisdiction were made, the union was not federal in its er, an essential safeguard was gone, in the recognition of character. If this were not fixed, or the constituent par- the authority to form these compacts. The dissolution of ties not left equal, point of jurisdiction and authority, the constitution were of less evil import than such a rethis federal character could have no stability. If the par- cognition. No man (Mr. A. said) was more devoted than ties were at unrestricted liberty to make separate com- himself to the perpetuity of the Union, of which the conpacts for the transfer of jurisdiction, the balance of juris- stitution was the instument; yet, if obliged to elect bediction could not be fixed, nor the equality of the parties tween these evils, he must prefer its dissolution. There have any basis of permanence. The recognition, then, was no authority, however, on the part of the General Goof a power to make separate compacts with the States, vernment, to form compacts of the kind supposed ; nor, if on the subject of jurisdiction, subverted the essential con- it had been competent to form them, had any such been, ditions, and forming principle, of a federative compact, in fact, formed. This ground of the claim of jurisdiction It would be in the competency of every party, at plea- in question was altogether unsustainable. sure, to alter what the wisdom of all had concerted, and The General Government could no more yield than it to subvert what the determinations of all had consecrated could acquire jurisdiction over subjects, or in any other as inestimable. Nor was this the most perilous result of mode than was provided for in the constitution. Nor was such a power of forming compacts. A greater danger the amendment liable to objection on this score What it than of the subversion of the system, was its abuse, by the proposed was not a cession, but renunciation of jurisdicpernicious employment of the jurisdiction and authority tion. Even if it might rightfully retain, the Government which might be irregularly acquired. Jurisdiction, in of the United States might well be desirous of getting rid itself, or its effects, was power. If the compacts of the of this jurisdiction, and devolving it on the States, if alStates were allowed to vary its distribution and arrange- lowable to do so This consideration opened the view of ment, by the constitution, power must be lost or gained policy, or of the relative advantages of this jurisdiction beby the General Government. If lost, the result might be ing exercised by the General or the State Governments. inefficiency-if gained it would be danger. By the de- What was designed or desired to be accomplished, in the rangement, the parties to the constitutional compact event of the jurisdiction remaining with this Government, would be left unequal. The stronger must be formida as the bill proposed ? The maintenance of the road by tolls, ble—the weaker would become submissive. From the not disproportioned in amount to what was really requisite moment that an unequal member (Philip]—unequal, not for that object. And what did the amendment import? merely in positive force, but political authority-was ad- That the several sections of the road were to be surrendered mitted into the confederacy which most resembled our to the respective States in whose bounds they were, on own, the Amphictyonic league, historians date the period these very terms, namely; that they were to be kept in proof its real dissolution. This disproportionate member per order, and that the tolls were, at no time, to exceed was at no difficulty in finding opportunities for the op- what was essential for that purpose. The same ends were pression of the co-members, through the instrumentality to be attained in the one event as the other. Would of the general authority. The danger was more obvious, they not be attainable, with the same effect, in the one as immediate, and greater, where the derangement of the the other? Was the jurisdiction of the States less? Was balance of jurisdiction, by State compacts, brought direct it not better fitted for the then attainment ? The authoriaccession of power to the General Government. The ty of the State was nearer to the subject, and occupied with head of the Government, in these circumstances, had a concerns far less distracting and momentous than that of resort in its provincial authority, thus acquired, where it the General Government Even the State Governments, doubted, or was not cordially sustained, by its regular with authority so much less diffused, and more liable to be constitutional auxiliary authority. Every State which absorbed by extraneous concerns, found it advantageous had shorn itself, by compact, of jurisdiction, would be an to devolve this function of the construction and supervision arsenal, on which the head might draw, when it desired of artificial roads on incorporated companies, capable of an to arm itself for the exertion of irregular authority, or for attention more concentrated and efficient. the exercise, oppressively, (which was a thing very pos How, then, must the case stand with the General Go. sible,) of that which was regular in its character. Sup- vernment, expanding over the surface-occupied with the puse-to present a mitigated example of this last dan- whole mass of the external, as well as a large share of the ger—that Georgia, on the subject of Indian lands, or more important internal concerns of a confederacy com. South Carolina, in relation to the tariff, should manifest mensurate with half a continent ? At the last session of symptoms of insurrectionary movements, and Congress, Congress alone, more than thirty reports, providing for trusting to reflection, and the patriotic feeling which, in the execution of projects of Internal Improvement, had those quarters, could never be long suspended, either by been made from the Committee on this subject. When passion or suffering, should be indisposed, or be suspect- these, and the countless series which was contemplated ed of being indisposed, to precipitate the crisis of con- by his friend, the Chairman of the Committee (Mr. Merflict, what was to hinder an exasperated head of the Go- cer,) and the other advocates of the system, had been acvernment from resorting to the States which had render complished, what was to be oor condition in relation to ed themselves provinces by compacts, for the means of the exercise of a due supervision on this subject, if supergratifying his passions, or crushing his adversaries? It vision were retained ? Were Congress to sit as a board of would only be necessary to call the proceedings resorted public works, exclusively, neglecting all more essential to, an execution of the laws. This phrase, the execution functions of every kind, external and interior, capacity or
Jan. 23, 1829. ]
(H. OF R.
time would not suffice for this duty, Every day, every [to construct roads) to this Government. The denial inhour, would be inadequate. Then, what is the conclu- volved, indeed, this present claim to set up a specific form sion? You have your road; a guarantee that it shall be of jurisdiction on the road, which must fall with the fall of adequately maintained in all time; that tolls shall not be the power For the sake of argument, however, he had imposed beyond what is requisite for this object ; that its conceded the power in the largest form in which it had use for your occasions, of any and of every kind, shall in been claimed by its advocates, viz: that to construct by the no respect be obstructed: the proposition merely is, that condemnation of the soil. What he denied was the ulteyou shall not retain a jurisdiction for which you are incon rior and consequent claim of jurisdiction, asserted by the veniently situated--a supervision for the exercise of which bill—the right to shut up the roads which the Government you are totally, incurably, confessedly unfit ; that you might make, from unrestricted use, and to levy tolls on should not do this, without a purpose to answer, as relates them. He denied ihat this ulterior jurisdiction was a conto the objects you profess to have in view.
sequence to be inferred from the principal power. The Can any reason be given for retaining jurisdiction on United States had a power to make roads for military such a subject, in such circumstances, by those who see no purposes, uncontested in time of war, and, therefore, inconobjection as respects the competency to surrender it? | testable as a provision for war in time of peace. But had Where, indeed, can any motive be found to retain, in this they a right to shut up these roads from the free and comview, unless it be in the extensive patronage connected mon use of the States and the people by positive regulawith the exercise of the jurisdiction? With no wish to give tion to that effect, or by the equivalent mode of regulations offence, Mr. A. found himself obliged to charge the influ. of toll? If they had, there was nothing to hinder the exence of such a motive. And what a patronge! When tension of the same system to all roads, by their adoption roads came to cover the whole country-were extended as post roads (with the solitary reserve of compensation for from Maine to New Orleans as was proposed-how couni the infringement of private property) and to submit the less must be the host of agents employed! how impracti- transit of persons and property to unlimited regulation by cable, by one Government, the function of adequate super- this Government. Such a consequence of it frustrated vision and control of them! how unbounded ihe scope for the pretension. The right really passing to the United favoritism and intrigue in their appointment—in their re States, under the power to make a road, was no more than moval! The remedy for all this, and the sole remedy, was, that which passed by the adoption of a post route--a right surrender of the roads to the States when we had execut. of way, not of regulation. The subject acquired was usued, or should execute, their proper function, in having fruct of the soil, not a property in it, conveying compemade roads. Mr. A. called, therefore, on all those who were tency to exclude others from participation in the use, or to adverse to the retention of this most abusive form of pa- charge that participation with a tax. What he asked tronage, with no countervailing benefit; on all who, admit- [Mr. A. said) was, that, in our legislation on this subject, ting a power of Iniernal Improvement, by the expenditure we should conform to this just view of it ; which we should of money only, were bound, in consistency with ihis prin- do by the substitution of the amendment for the bill. ciple, to disallow the jurisdiction by gates and tolls, which the adoption of this course, every practical advantage was territorial in its character ; on all who disclaimed the which had been proposed would be realized, without the power, and its consequences in every form, to unite in assumption of an unwarranted, or, in any event, questiondenying the jurisdiction in question by the adoption of the able jurisdiction by this Government, which was bound to amendment, and rejection of the bill.
a circumspect, not to say jealous observance of the limits His colleague [Mr. A. said] had stated an objection to of its authority. the phraseology of the amendment, and objected entirely [The committee then roge.] to the provisoes which stipulated the conditions on which the surrender of the sections of the road were to take effect, (the perpetual maintenance by tolls, not dispropor
FRIDAY, JANUARY 23, 1829, tionate, &c.) In this objection, Mr. A. thought his col
RETRENCHMENT. league refined too much. He [Mr A.) had no objection
The following resolution, reported from the Committee to these conditions, nor any difficulty as respected the
on Retrenchment, on the 21st inst. by Mr. WICKLIFFE, authority to require them. It was a recognized principle, that improvements inade by a party on the property of
came up for consideration : another, under an erroneous supposition of title, in which
“ Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives both parties concurred, were entitled to be compensated. of the United States in Congress assembled, 'That the SeHere there had been a supposition of right, on the part of cretary of the Senate and Clerk of the House of Representhe United States, to construct this road, evidenced by the tatives shall prohibit the use of the stationary of the two consent of the States through which it passed. The im Houses, in folding or endorsing any documents, pamprovement, the artificial road, had been made in this sup- phlets, or package, other than such as may have been printposition. For the cost of this improvement, then, the claimed by order of either House of Congress, or such manuto compensation was fair. The United States would pro script documents as may relate to the business of the same.” pose the liquidation of this claim in the stipulations of the Mr. WICKLIFFE briefly stated the object of the resoprovisoes to the amendment (in the event of its adoption.) | lution, as intended to prevent the unwarrantable use, or Compensation for the improvement transferred was to be the abuse of the existing privilege of members in relation obtained, in a participation in its use, guarded by a guaran 10 stationary, by enclosing, for the purpose of distribution, tee of its perpetual preservation, in a condition adapting matter which had no connection with the business of the it for use. The proposition was fair. The acceptance House. was warranted. Without this stipulation, too, every body Mr. BARTLETT moved to annend the resolution by knew that the surrender of the road had no chance to take inserting the words “ or printing." effect. Right permitted, expediency demanded, its adop Mr. WICKLIFFE declined accepting this as a modifition. Let, then said Mr. A.), this stipulation, the provisoes cation (to do which, indeed, he had no right, the resolution to the amendment, be retained, as the only effectual means being a joint one), inasmuch as he was not aware that any of preventing the retention of the road, and the jurisdiction part of the public stationary had been used for the purpose of it, which it was so important to defeat.
of printing Mr. ARCHER concluded by saying, that it would be re Mr. BARTLETT said, if such were the case he would collected that the view he had been endeavoring to press withdraw the amendment, and he withdrew it accordingly. on the committee did not rest on the denial of the power The question was about to be put, when