Constitutional Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1824-1832, 1830-05-14


light let chord of that discussion be struck Till
that time, let 1T lie by the ws The General Go.
vernment was empowered to make roads of q nation
al character; this was the ground assumed This re-
quisite OF na;ionalityt impossibein speculative
reasoning to deny. How far the condition had been
heretofore. likeyto be, observed in practice
every man was aware. Lett be supposed there was
no constitution this Government and vet tho com
plete system ofStato Governments subsistng with IT,
would its jurisdiction. then, extend to concur
renee IN every function Of the State Government
Who could be so absurd 10 suppose it, Who did
not perceive that the States were at the same time
separate Jurisdictions, and parts of general uris-
diction and thar there be functions m ronri,t
to each, and exclusive respectively of either
or why the supe'fuity o. double establish
ment OF authorities, and worse than the superlui
c .yi,. nne miscne,' as they must be perpetu-
any III conlct, with no line of demarcatons 1t would
De the conclusion, therefore, that there as
an appropriate province of jurisdiction for he mutton
as Tor the States and when any function was presen
tea Tor exercise act to be performed the nroncr
inquiry would be, to which of these it must be as
signed BY what test was this to be decided, Oh
Vlousy by the purpose and of the or function
III the results and use to be National then The
Function belonged TO the authority of the nation and
not otherwlse The use, then, was the test The
application Of this neutralized tho entire force of
the argument of the gentleman from Pennsylvania
MT HemphiD by whom the blhad been introduced
That gentleman had contended, that the extension of
ROAD into more states than of itself conferred
on the road he character of nationality. But if it
was the use which gave its nationality then he mere
extent oil the road was entirely imlnaterial road
lot hall mile from fort might have this charactor
! a road passing through every State in the Union
might want It, The truth of this remark was alma
/ rent: ifthe mere extension of road made j, ma
tonal, as no road passed to the froaer of State
without the certainty of finding another here to meet
! Its every road 20 a frontier must be national The
principle from which his conclusion was drawn pro-
we'd too much; and must, therefore. be rejected 1t
was equally mistake 10 maintain, as the same zen
teman had done, that order to the constructo of
an extensive line ofroud by the States it was neces-
sary there should be cumpacs between the States
engaging IN the construction Where vas the ne
cessiy If road made to the frontier of one State
met another passing to the frontier OF the State ad
Joining, there was 10 need of State compacs Yet
was upon this supposed necessity that the argument
alluded TO rested for it support.
lit was the of road which constituted tho
test of its nationality What were the uses supposed
to be of this character? Three were claimedLwar
the mail and commerce between States The con-
Gnct OF war, the transport of the mail and the reou
iat'n OF commerce between The States, were uncon-
tested national functions Subservlence to either of
these therefore, constituted national use of a road
i The question now, it was to be remembered was
not on the authority to construct roads for these
that, as belonging to the constitutional inquiry was
a point passed by twas on the policy, the advan-
tage' OF inslutng general system of roads, or of
the construction OF this particular road IL the bill
DID either OF the national uses mentioned, or all of
them demand either the general system or this road?
hese were the points to be considered And first,
OF war This was a national USE The nation m ght
make roads for If and so far as, the cxiqency
demanded. And what was the character of this ex-
gency: Its extent? The eXigency to measure the
policy. To determine the proprety of the particular
= road Did this exigency demand wide spread svs.
tenn OF roads mot in time of peace only even in time
OF war; Ihe particular road would be noticed pre-
senty) The exIgencies OF wal IN this respect were
not only extremely limited as to space, but occasional
only and of uncertain ana temporary DURATION Could
such exfgencies found an extended system of roads
sustain a general policy in this respect? The eyi.
gencies of war in particular circumstances demand
ed The condemnation of private property; that the s
onros OF towns should be burnt. Would this justify
general policy OF condemnation of property and bur
hig the suburbs OF towns in time of peace or even
IN Time OF war, before special of The EFFICIENCY
arose: ne argument was the same to roads for
, war. me junction was limited TO the occurrence ri
8 the e%igency. and measured BY its extent. When
speciai occasion for road the proDrety of CON
structing stood this peculiar and isolated foun
cation apart from any general aud systematic 20.
> Then as to the mail Was any man found affirm
ing that roads ought to be made for the mail merely
lsuPposng THIS to be the only for them? No one
asserted ths proposition Every one would dsclaim
II; then there was end TO the suggestion of the
mail exclusively furnishing the foundation of oene
raj policy of making roads
=, Next as to commerce The function claimed for
the general authority in this respect was to REGULATE
commerce. Was not the construction violent winch
converted a power to regulate, into necessity IA
nleke roads for commerce? Pass this bv however
as approaching the constitutional question Subser
Vency to commerce between the States was ma
oHai use. Did require the construction in policy
or what was the question: of roads for this object
Mnere there were none previously to be found-that
IS 10 say where this fact proved there was no occa
SION tor them' If there were occasion for roads
ere would have been roads; or, if there were none
III ,articlaT directions evidence could be better
that they were not demanded by The exieencies OF
commences The discussion, touching not the nero
Improvement Of roads, but the policy of constructing
them The system fou.Hd. then, not real warrant,
but color and name only, under commerce.
MT Archer would now advert. ,,s SAID IN the way
OF Illustration principally, tthe question e aging Fea!
.eFest relaingo the general policy to lie cru
Ter OF me particular read which the bill presented
IRE siou!d touch This point ve-y briefly as that which
nao been most discussed If as the opponent If fine
general policy, he had been called upon to state
case TO expose It, lie did not know that he could have
IRON the city of Washington to Buffalo national %
necessary why? Because the mil has it's cenfre
o. enanati"n at the seat of Government does if fal
tat munitions OF war and troops and the course
~ commerce, must enanae from the Same noint5