The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1846-03-11
CONGRE SSIONAL.
SPEECH OF Mr.. STANTON,
OF TENNESSEE,


The House being in COMMITTEES Of the Whole on
the state of the Union,
Mr.. STANTON obtained the floor, and address
ed the committee as follows
Mr.. CmAisssG LIS my duty to form snIopinion
and TO vote upon this measure. The committee
will therefore, indulge mo in the attempt briefly 10
define my position, and TO explain the course OF
action upon which have determined
With all Difference TO those gentlemen who have
addressed the committee, think extravagant opin-
ions have been declared upon both sides. On the
one hand. gentlemen have denied TO the government
the constitutional power to accomplish any Of the
works contemplated in the bill; on the other, II ID
asserted that it 10 duty to 60 much further and
we are invited to present objects OF Improvement
from all parts of the country and TO swell the ap.
preparation to a much larger amount / have no
sympathy with either Of these opinions. My con-
yction Is, that most Of the objects contemplated in
this bill are highly important and entirely within
the constitutional power Of the government. Some
q Of them, | admit, are Of doubtful policy, and Of
more Questionable constitutonality.
should conceive IL TO be great misfortune IL our
government crippled in its power a. some
gentlemen here represent IL. Ours Is a magnificent
country, unequslled in fertility and mineral wealth,
and blessed with natural advantages in its mighty
lakes and rivers, such other land on the globe
Possesses Its channels Of internal communication
are and universal in their character, that no
power less than that Of the nation, can improve
their deficiencies in a manner at all comparable TO
their grandeur and importance. people dwelling
upon glorious a territory, without the national
power adequately TO develop its resources to make
It's great streams navgabe, and the harbors Of its
lakes and seas secure, would exhibit melancholy
spectacle Of imbecility-a total unworthiness to
possess a country whose full natural advantages
they unable to improve and enjoy.
But the power il questioned. II has long been the
subject Of doubt and dispute. The objections to its
exercise not to be lightly treatsd-they wor-
thy of examination and discussion.
The advocates Of this power in the general gov
eminent have derived it neutrality-suspicious. from
that clause OF the constitution which gives Congress
authority ito provide for the defence and gem
1ai NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS. from that ITO regulate
eommsree rifh foreign nations and among the several
States snd rith the Indian fribes"-and sometimes
from that "to provide and maintain a nary"
In my Judgment, the power 10 appropriate money
for works of national importance 10 .pecesssry and
proper" and even indispensable, TO carry out that
primary power, given in the CONSTRUCTION, to defend
and protect the country by switzerland armies. ]
argument But must first alude to some positions
assumed by gentlemen who have preceded me-
The honorable gentleman from eUuth Carolina,
tMr. RaErr, gravely urged an objection to the
term "inland seas )" lately applied to the western
rivers and lakes. He assumed, as ground Of dis
tinction, that while the courts of admiralty Of the
United States have jurisdiction the Atlantic har-
bors and rivers to the extent Of tidewaer such ju
risdiction does not upon the western rivers
even upon the lakes. ] suppose the gentleman would
scarcely argue, that any power to make improve
ments upon tide waters and the absence of such pow
er upon waters affected by the tides, to
be inferred from the distinction stated by him. For
admiralty jurisdiction is one thlng-power to appro-
pirate money for national improvements, is another.
There 10 no necessary connection between them.
can discover no affiniy--no connecting link--to
ms,ss the one dependent upon the other. The hon.
orable gentleman referred to decision ofthe highest
tribunal in the land. Thomas PhGbus, on account
of transactions occurring on the Ohio river, attempt
ed to libel the steamboat Orleans in the admiralty
court Of the United States at New Orleans; but,
upon an appeal to the Supreme Court, the jursdic-
ton was denied. am at loss to see the applica.
bilty Of this case IN tho argument now before the
committee. In what manner can this decision
bear upon the constitutional power of the gov
eminent to improve the navigation of the Ohio
and Mississippi riversi IL there anything in
the nature Of admiralty jurisdiction SO different
from that of ordinary jurisdiction that any such
power that supposed could be inferred from
ID fit be inferred that jurisdiction over maritime
transactions draws with II the power to improve the
navigation of the seas, might similar inference
be drawn from that civil jurisdiction which the con-
sttution, in the same clause and in the same Ian
guage, confers upon the government as to transac-
ions between the citizeEs of different States' But
draw no such inference. II ia equally wrong in both
cases. Jurisdiction, maritime or civil, is wholly
unconnected with the authority to appropriate
money for national improvements.
i deem it necessary to make this allusion to the
gsntlemans argument. For, although he does not
profess to draw the inference which have resisted
cannot suppose he would deem il important to
make 20 grave and legal an argument upon the bar
rsn question of the applicability Of mere to
the western waters. Ii this were all, he might have
saved his labor, and consoled himself with the re-
Fiction that ia rose by any other name would smell
a sweet.p But most Of his hearers and readers
would understand thar this ,aiQisction, upon the
ground Of jurisdiction. wss MEM TO- cover some-
ding more than the gentleman was willing to &C
knowledge. In another part Of his speech he de-
Tended tho powerto corsvuoe ke1ht-houses, piers
&C., within tide water, in the following language:
81 do not deny however that our lighthouse system
does afford some apparent 70 10
ssablished this system ever contemplated policy he
vocass They designed that lighthouses and buoy
mage duty esacied upon ali or our yesses entering
porte expressly designed TO support the system at IN
expense OF those who should enjoy s benefits For tn
sam. purpose Hghtmoney, 4 was called, was also ss
cannot for moment suppose that the honorable
gentleman, with his rigid notions Of constitutions
construction, would deny to the government thu
power TO build lighthouses for the general conve
nience without charge, and YET admit that the gov
srnment might become Spectator in the same cs
Adjustments, exacting tax for their use. II hal
not the power without the tax il has not the powe
with il; for il might happen that the tax would no
reimburse the expenditure, and then there would b.
an excess Of power, involving an expenditure with
out authority, If this be not the ground occupied
by the gentleman, then he must justify those csab
ishments upon the other ground Of maritime juris
dieton.
understand the gentleman also to deny the pow
er Of the general government to improve the weser
rivers because those rvers--especially the Ohio
are entirely within the jurisdiction Of certain States
Now, this argument seems to proceed upon tn
ground that jurisdiction in some way or other regu
lstes and controls the power in question. But ap
prehend the United States has no jurisdiction owe
acertain spot on the coast selected for a lighthouse
until that spot shall have been purchased for tn
purpose. Iii not, therefore, the Jurisdiction whic
gives the power to erect the structure for the iurs
dietion does notcxist until the establishment nvov
ing the exercise Of the disputed power has first bee
determined upon.
Tn. western rivers are great highways and a
the citizens Of ell the States, well as the gener
government, have the right 70 the uninterrupted ne
OF them for navigation Neither Virginia, ker
lucky, nor any other State, has power 70 prsve'