Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1826-12-09

system OF Internal lmprov ement. When these
differing views of the same individual occur, 20
say, it seems TO show how difficult is the cues
ton to be solued-how much OF foibearance ought
to be practised." This is the first admission we
have known you to make of any difficulty
in the matter. lift stood alone, it might inspire
some hope that you had begun TO see the mon
s,rous heresies into which your new idols were
leading you But in the same column we find
you contending that the exercise of the power re-
laive Internal Improvement, had been long
| since decided by the People from the
| commencement OF the government and that
their appreciation of 1t stood upon much higher
grounds than OF the power to establish the u. s.
Bank, which had been sanctioned by Mr.. Madison.
Driven, as you have been, from your shelter IN
der Mr.. Madison's wing; and despairing of the
| benefit OF his name, you endeavour TO weaken his
authority, IT relied upon against you, by illusions
| to his change OF opinion on the Bank Question.
The detection and exposure of such subterfuges is
| enough tor documents upon them will be made
by others.
Your last, and from the stress you seem TO lay
| upon il, your most formidable precedent for the
exercise of the power roads and cansls is the
| act OF Congress for road from the boundary line
OF Georgia to the limits OF our (hen) territory in
the direction OF N. Orleans, and subsequently for
the continuation of that road to N. Orleans, under
such regulations as nigh. I've agreed upon with
Spain. You call this triumphant precedent;
occurring too, under the administration OF Mr. JEFF
ferson, who mentioned it TO Col Benton, and who
instructed him where to find the Maps, &c. We
are not in possession OF all the facts connected with
this precedent, nor do we positively know what
were the precise views enter aimed by the politi-
clans OF that day. Isolated instances, like this TO
be found in the records OF past history, DO not,
in cur opininion, affect the general principle. /,
is not impossible that the wants OF the u. States
| territory, between Georgia and the Spanish line,
may have been supposed TO have called imperious-
ly for such road that the value Of the public
lands depended in great degree, upon the facility
with which their products could be conveyed to
market The territories of the u. S. have no To-
cal legislatures and depend upon TIE legislation oil
Congress exclusively for all the advantages of gov
eminent. The making of the road within the ter
ritory appears have been provided for hy the first
act. in 1906. Itmay have beer. considercd by MIR
Jefferson as falling legi,imatey within the power
OF territorial jurisdiction confer ed by the constitu-
ton. The subsequent act of 1907 for the contin-
ualion fthe road through the Spanish dominion una
have been considered absolutely necessary to make
the road useful to the citizens or TO give them tn.
advantages OF a market. But there is another fact
In this transaction, which ought scarcely to have
escaped you. The territory through which the
road was 10 run after its leaving the settled boun-
daries of the U. s., stood in peculiar relation
| We claimed II as own. We claimed it as a
part of Louisiana; while Spain held it in point oil
fact. Mr.. Jefferson, therefore, in desiring road
10 be extended 10 N. Orleans under meditatet
arrangement with Spain. might have acted under
the idea that 1t was in reality part OF our own
territory through which the road was 10 run. I'm
der This point OF view, the question whether
the u. States have power TO make road in Ter
tory-We deny then your assertion that these
acts appropriate money 60 to construct road
Though state" either with or without its con.
sent. There was no state in the question; the sol
& Jurisdiction were considered as belonging to the
Federal except such parts of the former
as belongedt TO the Indians; and the construction OF
The road was supposed to result from an obligation
on the govt, growing out of its exclusive jurisdic.
tion-and, therefore, might come under most of the
observations which we have made upon tina,
branch of the subject.
We cannot agree with you that this pre-
cedent at all I" asserts the general power"-But
even II 1t did so, are you much welded TO the
validity OF prccSdentS as 10 say that this is obga-
tory;lhat under your view of the case Congress
only have the power to :Ie peoples money, in
making internal, but external improvements
Surprising we view this as you do, Spanish terri
iory-are you carried off by the precedent as to
find no difficulty IN advocating the authority o!
! uniting with Gi Britain in making roads in Canada
or with Mexico OF any South American govern
ment, or in making any Improvements in that quar-
| ter Without expressing opinion of the act.
| alluded TO- 1t Is enough tor our purpose TO show
that they have no bearing upon the subject. The
argument must be desperate indeed that relies upon
such a " triumphant precedent as this, as 6 em-
bracing every point in controversy! The gene
raj power extends 10 states with organized and
| independent governments the precedent only ex-
tends TO a territory, far as the road is within
our limits; and beyond them, according to your
| view Of il. To our minds there is no sort of A.
| nalogy.
1t is the fashion of the Jay to sustain every thing
by precedentS-to distoIt what has been done into
an example of w hat it is desirable TO do. we
have already commented on the dangerous tenden-
cy OF this praciiceand would again illustrate on
| idea of it by the forcible remark of an eloquen,
Statesman" Precedents are The inclined Plane
d0IUn Which oil Governments hare slid into Mo.
rlarehy and cOrrupti0n."
| Ii has no, been our intention TO pass nnnoiiced
any argument you have relied on. If we have
| done so, ws feel confident that the tenor of Oh,
remarks will furnish general answer
Since your 90 farewell notice, you have been,
yourselves, somewhat startled at the extravaganza
of your own doctrines. We come TO this Obvious
conclusion from the fact that you have returned 10
the subject with lame explanation of your views
OF the power Of the government to appropriate
money. You say SO we wish it not to be under
stood as our opinion that Congress can do any
thing which is not fairly incidental to the powers
granted. We have idea OF asking for Congress
unlimited powers, nor even power TO do eueru
thing that is not forbidden. If you flat,er your
selves, gentlemen, that this new version Of your
faith will avail you, or that by adroiiness you can
throw dust in the eyes Of the public, and make
them believe that you have not abandoned the
school OF the old Republicans, you are mistaken.
Although you do not claim " for Congress unli-
mlted power" you extend the limitation so much