The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1846-03-07

But il may be said, we purchased Louisiana in
1905 from France, and by this means obtained tn,
whole OF the Mississippi river and as, by act o.
Congress- or Stse constitutions afterwards the pro
visions OF the ordinance Of 1857 were adopted, anC
made applicable to States; therefore its stipula
tons are Of force, and give the United States govern
ment peculiar rights or jurisdiction over the Missis
sPpi river
The answer to this question Is not difficult, Thu
constitution OF the United States in full forct
when the louisiana purchase was made; and, o.
course, il fell under the terms and Limitations o
the constitution. Neither Congress in legislatins
with respect TO its territory State arising on
of it, can alter change, or modify the constitution
of the United States II the United States, by Con
gress or State, by compact or by separate legsla
ton, should make any agreement whatever, enlarg
ing the powers Of the general government over any
subject whatever, it would be null and void. Tht
ordinance Of 1887, being before the constitution Of
the United States was made, NAV have posseesed
peculiar sanction and efficiency by the terms Of thai
instrument, adopting the agreements" Of the con-
federation; but when, Afterwards either by the le-
gisauon Of Congress or the constitution Of State
II is attempted to be extended to territories
quired, or new States organized its provisions fall
under The constitution Of The United States, and can
neither extend nor abndge It's powers. 1 do not
admit that the ordinance Of 1857 confers or retains
anything more than personal privileges to the citi
Of the United States but admitting that IL does
do more, il does not apply 10 the Ohio river, be-
cause that was and is exclusively within the juris-
dIcuon of Virginia and Kentucky. ltdid not apply
to the Mississippi river because that river then
belonging IN part to France IL cannot apply since,
to any portion of the Mississippi liver, giving pc
cuiar powere TO the general government, because
the constitution of the United States forblds It..
come now, Mr. Chairman, TO the second reason
assigned, making the Mississippi and its tributaries
subjects for peculiar congressional appropriations.
1t is said, and the gentleman ffofn Ohio [Mr.
SCHEEcsl has anticipated me in discussing it, that
is great inland sea, like the bays on our seacoast
and stands in the same relstio towards this gov
eminent. ! cannot suppose that those who take
this position can put nupon the more or less Of wa
ter IN the Mississippi TO distinguish il from the other
rivers Of the Union. To put great constitutional
power on such criterion is putting it on no critic.
rion at all. And If It could constitute a critic
ron, the answer Is, the constitution could not have
contemplated 1t, because the riptr MsSissipp 0as mol
ours al the time The constitution TdS made. Il has been
acquired snce and, therefore, either from its mag
nitude or uses, could not have been contemplated
by the constitution, be the subject of any dsnc-
ton under 1t. must suppose that, in lizenlng the
Mississippi and It's tributeries from their SIZE TO our
bays on the oeacoast, II is supposed that they are
alike in the jurisdiction Of tho United States over
them. But this is a great mistake.
The constitution extends the Jurisdiction of the
United States courts ito all cases of Admiralty and
maritime jurisdiction Admiralty and maritime
jurisdiction extends TO the and it's bays and TO
rivers as fur as tide water flows. Does this iurs-
dctIon include the lakes, the Mississippi or the
Ohio, or any other river inland' II does not. The
question was expressly tried in the Supreme Court
of the United States, in the case of a steamboat
which run from Wheeling 10 New Orleans. Being
found IN tte1water IN New Orleans, IL was hbeIled
Tor wages due. Mr.. VMToN said, il was the case
of Phebus vs. Steamboat Company thank the
gentleman for INSTRUMENTATION. He was the lawyer
whose great learning and abilities enlightened the
court in their decision, that the jurisdiction Of the
courts of the United States did not apply TO any OF
the western rivers; and therefore they refused to
take cogniZance Of the But how is il with the
Chesapeake, or any other bay on our seacoast The
courts of the United States do take daily cognzance
of cases arising on them. There il, therefore, no
analogy, if analogy would help the pretension for
claiming appropriations for the mississippi river
and It's tributaries between the waters on our bays
and the western rivers 1t is true an attempt was
made at the last session ofCongress, by bill drawn
up, Understand, by Judge Story and Judge Nc
Lean to extend the jurisdiction of the United States
courts over the waters of the lakes. A member
said the bill passed and was a law | am sorry to
hear it, because such law in my opinion is utter
ly unconstitutional. The jurisdiction of the United
States courts Is fixed by the constitution. II can
neither be enlarged by the laws of State nor by
the laws of Congress. If it can in one particular it
can in another and thus the jurisdiction of This
court be extended to all cases whatsoever and the
constitution be changed at the caprice of Congress
or State. The constitution is a compact between
all the States, and can be altered or amended only
by ALL or by the mode all have designated in the
constitution. But whether the law is constitutional
or not is conclusive Of one thing; proves that in
the opinion Of the Supreme Court and of Congress,
the western waters without it do not stand upon the
same footing with the waters on our Atlantic bays;
and not yet being made applicable to the western
rivers they are still, without any pretenson to the
contrary, under the exclusive jurisdiction of the
States through which they pass.
But, let us admit that the western rivers stand
precisely in the same relation towards the T. States
as our Atlantic bays am at a loss to conceive how
that will Justify expenditures for their improvement
Those who deny the power Of this government to
carry on internal Improvements within the States do
not put it on the ground that where the jurisdiction
of the United States courts extend these improve
ments may be carried on. They no more admit of
the constitutonality of appropriations for eastern
than for western harbors--lor Atlantic than for
western rivers--for canals OF roads on this or the
other side of the Blue Ride They deny all; and
against any all they hold up the barriers of the
constitution however frai, to resist the inroads of
power and rapacity.
Having thus endeavored to show that the distinc-
ton attempted TO be drawn favor of the western
waters, giving them peculiar constitutional claims to
our appropriations, is without foundation, will
turn to but other of the features Of the bill be-
fore you before enter upon the general cons.itu-
tional argument This bill makes an appropriation
TO purchase up livestock of the Louisville and Port
land Canal Company. This company was char
tered by the State Of Kentucky; and the
canal round the rapids at Louisville, is en-
tirely within its limits 1t is proposed by
the appropriation, that the United States should
buy out all the stockholders, and thus become the
exclusive proprietor Of the charter The United
States will thus become corporator under the law
of State, with power to the soil, and tax the
navigation of the whole West floating up and down
the Ohio river. know very well that It is expect
ed that the United States will not use this power,
but will surrender the charter, and make the canal
free; but that will be matter of discretion, which
cannot affect the constitutional power. put it to
this democratic House of Representatives whether
they prepared to assert such principle on the
part of this government 1.-THE United States can
thus own a canal why not bank-why not any
other corporation within the States We have been
battling for years against the power of this govern
ment to make corporation at all. On this ground
after struggle commencing with the government,
we have lately put down United States bank. Can
it be beyond our constitutional competency to in
corporate bank ourselves, and yet be able to own
any, or all the banks in the Union incorporated by