Cheraw gazette. [volume] (Cheraw, S.C.) 1835-1838, 1836-05-24

ence, and more thorough consideration Of
the subject, hare convinced me the President
| of the impropnety as 'ceH as inerpediency Of
such ;nrestments." After the gentleman
had spoken ofthe shock and disappointment
! which the Maysville and Louisville canal
had produced in the West, and their tenden.
cv to weaken the ties which bind together
representative and constituent, and denying
the right Of representative to change his
pledged opinion, he says: "But 1t teas nc.
cessary to break the shock which this dssap-
point,aent caused in the West"
This purpose was accomplished, says the
gentleman, in the message Of 1929. Sir,
this is certainly most singular state of
things. The force fthe shock and dlsap-
pointment created by the Maysville veto
message ofMay, 1880, in the West, is bro.
ken by the annual message Of December,
1929. Most singular-he. force Of a shock
mtich took place IN Nay, 1880, IS broken By
a message delirered about sir months before !!
leave the gentleman TO make the best of
this argument he can; for it is, admit,
greatly beyond my comprehension. In ad-
dition to this testimony; | will offer that Of
Mr.. Cay, who pronounced, think in 1884,
the death of his favorite system of internal
improvement under the blow given it by the
Maysrille veto. Every member knows the
particular solcitude with which that gentle.
man watched over his favorite system, and
that, from his public or private relations with
the President, he would not be disposed to
do him more than justice; yet, as late as
1884, he pronounced the system crushed
beneath the power Of the veto. Now, sir,
this gentleman, or the gentleman from Ten
nessce, is mistaken. But, sir, as to the
protested principles Of the President upon
this subject when he came into Office; inde-
pendent of this testimony, think | shall be
able satisfactorily TO prove that the . resident,
in the administration ofthe Governments, has
been consistent with himself, in profession
and practice, in relation to this subject. The
Maysville veto was the first occasion upon
which the President made particular avow::
al oflis opinions upon this all important
question of constitutional power, IN (which
he denies the right Of this Government to
construct works of Internal Improvement
within the boundaries of State, or TO ap-
propriatc money in aid of such works, by
subscriptions for stock or otherwise. He
avows also the opinion that this Government
has the powelr) appropriate money for re-
moving obstacles from, ard improving the
.navigablc rivers within, the limits of a State,
or where It's the boundary between States,
and for constructing works of improvement
in the Territories; in all Of which he distin-
guislics between works Of Il national and
those Of mere local character. The Pre-
sident, however, in the veto message, eS-
presses himself doubtfully Of what is the
true boundary line, within which the Govern
ment may appropriate money, and recon-
mends such an amendment ofthe Consttu.
ton as will place the exercises of this lm-
portant power upon its true ground, defining
the line over which the Government shal!
not 20, and putting to rest forever this vexed
question. The President repeated IN each
ofhis succeeding messages the difficulty
under which he lubored, and the recomlnen-
iation ola constitutional amendment, to re-
licye the Executive from the difficulty. This
recommendation Of his, merely to define by
constitutional declaration this power, has
not been responded to By thc'represcntatlves
of the People, and the responsibility for It's
failure rests upon them.
1t cannot be forgotten that the MaysTl!e
veto was hailed with enthusiastic delight by
the opponents OF this power, as. cutting OFT
the whole system of local improvements
within the limits of the States, and though
not achieving the whole, yet achieving much
very much, for the principle Of strict con-
siruction. All the public journals so regard
ed it, and this was the view which was ia.
ken by the whole nation. This, sir, is the
principle which the Administration profess
ed; and conteid that inall the approprIa-
tons for works Of internal Improvement,
none have been constructed ofs local char
acter, Incompatible with the principles avow-
ed in the Maysvillc veto and subsequent
messages. lfthere is one, sir, 1t has esca-
ped my memory, and I should like to know
the truth.
TMr. Wise rose and said, that understand.
inc his honorable colleague (Mr. Garland)
to INQUIRE or ask for specification ofany
act ofapproba,ion by the Executive OF the
principle Of internal improvement since his
veto ofth Maysyille road bill, ne would
with his colleagues permission, specify q
single instance during the last Congress.
Mr.. Garland gave way, and Mr.. Wise
proceeded to state that during last Congress
! there was a bill of appropriation for the con:
struction Of certain harbors on the lakes, in
the States Of New York and Ohio. That
when that bill came up for consideration, his
oolaop,o mr. Marrorl moved fo amend IL