The British government, relying on supplies to be drawn from the northern parts of the United States, through the provinces of the Canadas and New Brunswick, united with the scanty products of those provinces, for her West India islands, has interdicted all trade, in American ships, between our Atlantic ports and those islands. If those supplies from the states to Montreal, are not prevented by canal improvements between the great lakes and the Hudson, affording facilities to a market in the states, the present policy of Great Britain will prove successful, and a deep and lasting wound be inflicted on our commerce, and the nursery of our seamen.

Mr. SMITH, of Maryland, said he had ever been in favour of internal improvements, and he had carried theory into practice as far as his humble abilities and private means enabled him to do. There were few public improvements, in the district he represented, that had not had his aid. As a member of congress, he had given his vote and his aid to every improvement of the country that had in view a national object. But, sir, said Mr. S., I never have conceived it my duty to vote for the appropriation of large sums of money to be frittered away and applied to objects of trifling importance. Such, I conceive, will be the application of the fund contemplated by the bill now under consideration.

The bill, as originally reported, created a fund of six hundred and fifty thousand dollars per annum, or pledged the interest of eleven millions, in perpetuity, for internal improvements, to be applied as congress might hereafter direct, and the gentleman (Mr. Calhoun) stated some of the objects to which the fund would, he presumed, be applied. Sir, had the bill retained that shape, the fund might have been applied to great national objects. I will mention some of them, The first in consequence, in my estimation, is, to connect the waters of Lake Erie by a canal, with the Hudson. The importance of such a work must present itself to every well informed mind. Unless such a canal be made, the produce of the lakes and of the rich lands of New York, bordering on the St. Lawrence and Lake Ontario, must find a market at Montreal, and the advantages, of course, of a great proportion of our country, must go to Great Britain and her colonies. A canal from Lake Erie would draw the greater proportion of the products to New York. No sum, Mr. Speaker, could be too great to effect an object so grand, so splendid. This bill will afford a trifle only towards it. Another great object would be to construct canal locks round the falls of the Ohio, by which a certain navigation would be secured to ships and vessels descending that river, to the great advantage of Pennsylvania, Virginia and the Western states. There are other great national objects,

which are familiar to all, and which might have been perfected if the bill had remained as originally reported, but which will be paralyzed by the bill on the table! Let us take a view of it.

The bill, as amended, appropriates a capital of near eleven millions, or 650,000 dollars per annum, to be divided among the states annually, in proportion to the number of their representatives, and the proportion of each to be applied within the respective states in such manner as congress may hereafter direct. This, said Mr. S., appears at first view plausible and fair; what, however, will be its operation? New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Jersey, Maryland, Delaware and South Carolina, never can have any increase of members on this floor: they will increase in numbers, but such will be the superior increase in other states, that I must consider those states stationary as to representation in congress. Thus, while other states will, at every census, increase their proportion of the fund, the proportion to those states will decrease. Maryland will draw for four years from the fund, a proportion as 9 to 183

-or 31,968 dollars each year. In 1820 a new census will be taken, after which her proportion will probably fall, by the great increase of New York and the Western states, to 25,000 dollars-I fear to a less amount-and in ten years more, to perhaps 15,000 dollars. The other stationary states which I have named will be similarly situated. Delaware will now divide 7,100 dollars annually.

Mr. Speaker, I frankly confess, that I would greatly prefer being silent on the subject of roads and canals during the present session. We have just emerged from an expensive war, the charges of which are not yet known. By the next session we shall have a more correct view of our finances. The view we now have is on estimates. Let us first pass the bill for establishing a sinking fund. Let us have time to know the operation of the new tariff of duties laid the last year. Let us know the amount of militia and other claims of the states, and the arrearages for army accounts. All these can be known by the next session, when, if we have the means, gentlemen will find me as liberal as any member of this house to promote objects of internal improvement, tending to great national purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I have examined the finances, with a view to the bill now under discussion. The data I have taken are drawn from the report of the committee of ways and means on the sinking fund, bottomed on the report of the secretary of the treasury, in which, it will be recollected, the secretary charges no interest on the capital of seven millions vested in the bank, because he presumed the dividend would meet the amount of that interest; he also gives credit for the bonus of 1,500,000 dollars from the bank, in three annual payments, as it becomes due. The result of my examination is, as stated in the report of the committee of ways VOL. II.

S

and means, that there will be in the treasury, on the 1st day o

Jan. 1818,

Deduct one year's interest, payable on the

7,000,000 bank stock in 1817, at 5 per cent.

$3,650,000

350,000

3,300,000

It is, however, expected, that the sales of land will give more than its usual amount in 1820, but not more, in my opinion, than will be met by new and increased expenditure. Under this

view of our finances, I cannot, at this time, said Mr. S., consent to any new plan of expending the public money.

In fine, I am for appropriating our funds, when we can act advisably on the subject, to the making such roads and canals as have for their object, national advantages; not to be divided into small and insignificant sums, to be applied to objects within the power and means of the states individually.

Mr. SHEFFEY, of Virginia. The subject presents two propositions for our consideration: First-Does the constitution authorize congress to make provision by law to attain objects. such as are contemplated by this bill? Secondly-If such power exists, is it expedient to exercise it now, and in the manner proposed? On the first question, though I accord in sentiment with the honourable gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Calhoun) that we have the power, yet I do not agree with him that we derive it from that clause in the constitution to which he referred it; that which empowers congress "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises; to pay the debts, and provide for the common defence and general welfare." I do not view the latter sentence as containing a distinct substantive grant of power. It must be taken in connexion with the other provisions in the constitution; and, in my opinion, ought to be understood in this sense-that congress shall have power to levy money to provide for the common defence and general welfare," so far as the common defence and general welfare are confided to them by this constitution.

If we possess the power in question, it must be, as incidental to some one or more of the powers expressly delegated to us; as an instrument the more effectually to attain some or all of the great ends for which this government was instituted. It is here where those who contend for the existence of this power, and those who deny it, separate. It has been said by some, and stated to-day by an honourable gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Pitkin) as his opinion, that congress could employ no means to carry into effect the delegated powers, but such as were ABSOLUTELY necessary. [Mr. Pitkin here rose and said he had stated it not as his own, but the opinion of others, with which he disagreed.] Mr. Sheffey said he was glad to find he was mistaken. It was an opinion, however, seriously entertained, and often uttered on this floor. If such is really the fact, then this government is without any power whatever. As in the physical and moral, so in the political world, there is scarcely an end which may not be attained by different means. If the objects confided to you, can be effected only by such means as are absolutely necessary, how will you effect any? If to execute the power to lay and collect taxes," you direct that my land shall be sold for non-payment of a direct tax, I may say the law is un

constitutional, because it is not absolutely necessary that you should sell my land: you might sell my house, or obtain the tax by many other means; all of them, perhaps, equally certain to attain the end, but none of them absolutely necessary. If to execute and provide proper sanctions to your laws, embracing subjects expressly delegated to congress, you impose imprisonment on the delinquent, may he not say that you are guilty of usurpation; that the privation of his liberty is not absolutely necessary to execute your law? In fact, sir, there is no imaginable case where this doctrine would not unnerve you, and render this government, formed for great purposes, and ostensibly invested with great powers, utterly imbecile and a . subject of derision and contempt.

Those who formed this government, acted like wise and practical statesmen. They designated the objects of your jurisdiction; the means which you should employ to secure those objects, they did not, because they could not prescribe. They left the selection of the instruments to those who should be appointed to use them. They invested you with all the means necessary and proper" to carry into effect the delegated powers, and left you to determine what was 66 necessary and proper." Hence I contend that if the object itself is within your control, a measure which tends to promote or effectuate it, is not limited by any constitutional restriction, but is a matter of discretion, for the abuse of which, we are responsible to our constituents, as in those cases where the power is unquestionable.

There are some objects vitally interesting to several states; to the accomplishment of which private means and enterprize are perhaps not competent, and which it would be unjust to expect to be effected by the state who has the local jurisdiction; such for instance is the cutting a canal round the rapids of the Ohio. All the immense region above and below is equally interested in effecting this great object. Shall Kentucky or Indiana alone bear the burthen, when many others are alike benefitted by the result? Can those states effect it whose territories are distant? Certainly not. Who then is to provide for this great object? The government of the United States, which has under its exclusive control the commerce between the several states.

The same clause which gives to congress the power to "regulate" commerce between the several states, gives the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and with the Indian tribes. Under the first of these powers, Congress, to give external commerce all possible facilities, have erected light houses, piers and beacons; they have established regulations for seamen in the merchant service; they have levied a capitation tax on these seamen contrary to the rule of the constitution, (as being a case not embraced by it) to create a hospital fund for the