Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1824-01-24
kiCHMUND- JANUARY o. IG9I.
RO.4D.S AND C.4.V:9LlS.

| We recommend to the attention of on
readers the clear and conclusive argument o
Mr.. +. z. Barbour lin this days paper) on Tho
question of Internal Improvement. The prin
| clples he advocates are those of '93-they arc
the principles of tho old republican party
the true principles of the Federal Constitution
AS Virginia has been the firmest TO defenc
them, she ought to be the last TO abandon
them.
| When Mr.. Madison closed hi. eventfuI adj.
ministration by affxing his veto on the bill TO,
Internal Improvement, the friends of the con-
stitution rejoieed. They indnlged a hope, tina,
the danger was somewhat over; that years
would pass away, before the power in question
would he attempted to be usurped. But the
enemy is again laundering at the gates of the
citadel--and Mr.. Barbour, like a faithful
warder, is again sounding the alarm
1t was hoped too, from Mr.. Monroe's first
Message to Congress, that for his administers
ton at least we were safe-fEvents have prov
ed otherwise. Two years ago Mr.. Monroe re-
versed his own opinions. His, celebrated me-
moir of 1892 really " strained OF a gnat, while
IT swallowed camel" He took holder
ground than almost any other politician who
had gone before him. Dsclaiming the idea
of founding this power on the jurisdiction
over Post Roads, over military preparations,
over the commerce between the states, he
| sought for it in the alarming power of raising
| and appropriating the money of the nation
He commended that there was no limit TO the
raising of Doney--nor within certain boun-
DIARIES (Which he neither did nor can defne) to
the appropriation of money to the purposes of
the general welfare. This sweeping doctrine
is calculated to alarm all the friends of the
state governments and all the advocates of a
limited constitution
They must not however, yield to DESPAIR
They must struggle to the last.
This question Is stirred at the same time i'm
Washington and in Richmond. We this day
present also sketch ofthe Debate in the II.
OF ID. on the Potomac BILL The whole debate
turned on the powers of Congress Does the
Ryder sufficiently guard the rights of the
| states 1t has been more than once said-it
was frequently said in the case of the Cohens
that let Congress fix their lever on the ten
miles square, and they might move the Union.
In the case IN question, the canal is TO run
through the District. The territorial govern
ment, therefore, is expected to be one of the
parties. Congress represents that government
at the same time that they exercise, within
certain limitations, certain powers over the
Union az large. Hence the line of demarca-
ton IN the two cases I. While Congress can
not put their hands into the national treasury
nor pledge the national credit for the max
ing OF the canal, they may. as tn territorial
government, raise money upon the district
10 assist IN executing the canals, and may be-
come party TO the scheme. Hence the in
tention of the Ryder, which requires another
feature 10 obviate all objections "Provided
too, that ifcongress appropriates one cent from
the general treasury, or pledges the credit Of
the nation to this canal, from that moment
the present bill is 10 be null and of no effect -
Such provisc is indispensable aud with
other suitable amendments in this and IN the
loan btH, may prove satisfactory. We should
earnestly wish it, not because we love the citi-
zens on the Potomac the less, but we 90 love
the constitution more"