The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1846-03-07
CO NGRE SSIONAL
SPEECH OF Mr.. RHETT,
OF SOUTH CAROLINA,

| Mr. RHEII obtained the nOOr, and SAID
Mr. CHAIRnAR the principles which the bill
before you has been defended by the chairman of
the Committee on Commerce, INN, McCLELLAHD, |
who has jubt taken his seat will doubtless In the
action Of the committee, prevail. Like the bill Of
the last Congress, of which il is the prototype, it
Twill become law, unless arrested as that bin was,
by the veto Of the Executive. have nothing, cir,
10 alege against the details of this BILL either ii the
amount Of money appropriated, although it numbers
millions or lis distribution. Il ia true that all goes
north or west but the assigned by the chair
man Of the Committee on Commerce for this peculi-
anty to me 10 perfectly satisfactory. The South
has asked for nothing she dees not aid in the over
throw of the constitution she is not accessory to
the murder ola great principle Of the republican
pauy, perpetrated, not by It's ancient enemies but
by It's protested friends and instead Of riotng over
the dead will follow the hearse as mourper 70 its
last home. The principle Of the bill 10 ali propose
to discuss rather from respect to the past than from
any hope IN the future.
But let me Say, In the commencement, that do
not agree with gentlemen as 10 the true issue this
bill presents on the existence Of the msasu!es OF in
ternal improvement 1t proposes. 1t Is not an issue
OF the existence or non-eXstence of internal I'M
preyemepls. These have been most extensively
carried on by the States, and with zeal which rot
only in many instances disregarded espedency in
the works proposed, but has endangered their faith
and honor from the enormous debts they have in
CURED to sustain them. If the measures proposed
cessity they have been described, they will doubt
less be completed by single States or by States COM
bined. The question is simply, Shall the States or
shall the general government, carry on these works
of internal improvement
And IN entering Oh the argument touching the
constitution, 1t Is Of the last importance TO under
stand what 1t is. Allow me, therefore, to clear
away some Of the mist, some of the irrelevant mat
ter, which has been thrown around il. All must
perceive that the renewed efforts 10 incorporate the
system OF internal Improvements on this government
originate with the West The union of all parties
vieing with each other in requiring Of this govern
meht appropriations for their rivers and harbors,
show that they do not rea1on on this subject as
others do. There IL deep impression in the west
ern mind, that they have peculiar claims for such
appropriations, which do not apply TO other sec
tons They do not think that their rivers, water
ing the great valley. Of the Mississippi, stand in the
same relation towards the government the other
rivers Of the Union. The Secretary of War, in his
report TO this Congress recommending the bill be-
fore US, distinctly afrms this popularity. In what
does this peculiarly consist? | understand it TO
consist IN two things lst in the ordinance regu-
ating DUR northwest territory, passed by the con-
federation in 1887; and I'd, in the magnitude and
use OF the rivers themselves. | propose, sir, to
show that neither of these grounds give to Con-
gress any power, right, or jurisdiction over the
western rivers, different from the other rivers of the
Union.
The ordinance of 1887 applied to the territory
lying between the Ohio and Mississippi rivers and
the lakes Ii a law Of the old considerations
and Of course passed before the present constitution
was adopted By virtue of that clause in the con-
stitution Of the United States which says, can
debts contracted, and engagements enertd into before
| the adoption Of this constitution shall be as valid
| against the United States under this constitution,
as under the confederation the ordinance of
1887, was made of force by the constitution
itself | do not stop TO inquire, whether
the confederation could, constitutionally, accept
cesson Of, own this territory, or, consequently,
make regulations concerning it. No such power is
given in the articles of confederation Admit that
It was valid by the articles of confederation, and
ian agreement" Of the confederation is obligatory
upon US, any of the limitations in the constitution
Notwithstanding, the questions arise, first, what
the terms' and, secondly, what was the extent Of
the ordinance!
The terms bearing upon the subject before us are
contained in the fourth article, which Declares "The
navigab waters leading into the Mississippi and
st. Lawrence, and the carrying places bet,oeen the
same, shall be common hgh.casy and forever free, as
well the inhabitants of the said territory the
citizens of the United States, and those Of any 9TH
er States that may be admitted into the confederacy,
without any tax, impost, or duty the refor." Do
these words import any right Jurisdiction retain
ed by the confederation, and consequently, by us,
over the western waters? Unlike our present
sttuton, the articles of confederation, have
said, conferred no power to the confederation to OBJ
ganized no tribunal, like the courts of the United
States, which could decide on or sustain It's uris-
dction. This view alone, If the words were far
more dubious, will account for the construction uni
versally put upon them, until within few years.
They were supposed to confer only personal priri-
kgts to The citizens Of the United States The wa
tiers to '!be common highways, and forever free
to the inhabitants of the said territory" and to
the citizens of the United States" The rivers were
not to belong to the United States whilst the coun-
try was territory, much less when the States, the
ordinance provided for should arise and be created
out of it, should become sovereignties. 1t was on
ly grant Of privileges to inhabitants" and "citi-
zens, like that which exists amongst the people of
different nations on many Of the rivers of Europe,
and was only enforcing, in this territory that provi-
sion of the United States constitution which existed
in the confederation, declaring that the citizens of
each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and
mmunities of citizens in the several States"
But the terms Of the ordinance are not at all inn
portant to the question. | will admit them to be
whatever gentlemen may desire. | come to its er-
tent, and deny that it extended either to the Ohio or
the Mississippi rivers. Ofcourse, consequence, if
this position is correct, neither to the United States
under the confederation, nor to the United States
under the present constitution, is any right or ju-
risdiction retained over these rivers.
And first, as to the Ohio river. The cession of
Virginia, which conveyed the territory, is ''of all
her right and title TO The territory situate wing, and
being 10 the northwest fine rrer Ohio" Kentucky,
at this time, was part of Virginia. BY the words
Of the cession conveying "hs territory northeast Of
the Ohio ,irrr it is clear that part Of the river
was coded, but only the territory northwest Of it.
Consequently, the whole bed of the Ohio, along the
borders Of Virginia and Kentucky, is exclusively
within the limits of these respective States. This
point was distinctly made in the Supreme Court of
1.-The United States, in the Of Handley, lessee,
VS.. Anthony, Wheaton; and the court determined
"that all the States arising out of the Virginia
sion had the Ohio river, at it's Or water mark, as
their boundary" The contest arose concerning
piece of land, covered during reshets high water
lying on the Indiana side Of the river. The Indiana
claimants took the land from the Kentucky claim
ants, because at low water the land was OH the In
diana side.
Nor can it be shown, with any better grace, that
the ordinance OF 1877 extended the Mississippi
river Before the war Of 1856, Virginia certainly
claimed, indefinitely, westward across the Missis-
sippi river. twas this pretenslon coming IN con-
hict with the possessions and settlements OF the
French on the Mississippi and Ohio rivers, that &c
casioned that war. The treaty of 1863 termi-
mating il, fixed the limits between the English and