Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1846-08-08

he had been compelled 10 vote against that object when thu
blu was under consideration for il nos the aaesoI
whether there should Be harbos for the boats the
Out only whether they should have harbor little higher
or little lower down The trade Of the river would hay
the same facility whether were in the place thu
other The object purely local. and involved no princi
pie Now Mr. D. doubted whether the principles laid dowr
IA this intended applying solely that item il
the bill, whether they included others.
Mr.. THURMAN asked whether the did relate Z
the distinction between harbors for foreign and those
terna commerce
Mr.. DOUGLASS said he did not at all approve Of th.
alleged distinction between harbor in fresh and salt water
and between improvements In river above and below port
OF entry he rejected and Tepudated them all he considered
them totally uniounded unreasonable, if ridiculous
But ne entirely approved what said in this message
as to granted powers and strictly necessary thei
execution that head he would go for
ton Of the constitution any gentleman he confessed
had great difficulty voting for the item for the improvement
of the harbor offs Louis because, that admitted
same reasoning would fifty hundred other point
on great rivers II did contribute the safety tbs
navigation Of river to build wharves before particular city
that the inhabitants might have the advantage Of greater
cy In participating in the trade IN the river and the money
thus spent in the erection Of wharSes might far better be ap
Piled to the removal Of snags rocks and sAnd bars which
were an impedment TO navigation.
Mr.. McCLELLAND asked If Mr. d. was aware that the
Improvement to which he objected had been recommended by
the Secretary Of War; and included the estimates
| the Secretary Of the Treasury
Mr.. DOUGLASS said he was fully aware Of It. and hs
confessed that that had done than any thing ID
his faith in those estimates to other points lie should like
to bear gentleman demonstrate the right Of the Govern
ment in improving river, TO wharf certain
point the above which Just as deep and
Bile the water below it. Where the difference between
compelling the channel of river flow certain
wharf, and carrying out wharf to where the channel
rally lay Every steamboat would be obliged pay five dol
lars for lying at wharf constructed Government expense
The little city where he lived had, at cost of fifty thousand
dollars, built wharf out to the channel and charged all
steamboats, wharfage for lying there pay back the money
thus expended He thought the great city Of st Louis might
do the thing 1t painful be obliged attack an
appropriation in which his constituents felt strong
erest; but Congress should make such improvement
ST. Louis with what face could they refuse when applied
by all the other situated same river
He had felt this difficulty, and only could in the first in
stance for the bill the ground of the recommendations and
had not pointed out explicitly what emsof the bill
his objections applied they confined to this one Mr.
ID. could go with him most heartily ~ f8hs
And regard to lake harbors. Mr. d. could not COM
prehend the distinction drawn this between haIbors for
foreign and habors for domestic The power
foreign commerce and between the States
tanned IN the same clause Of the constitution and applied
equally to BOTH IL Congress could improve
harbor the Atlantic coast why could it not do the same
thing the Lake How the powers of Congress
over the two subjects to be distinguished in principle We
must either further than this went 90
SO far We ought to place the lakes and the the
same platform should improve BOTH reject both. He
believed the powers Of Congress extended to the
alike OF harbor in BOTH and he prepared carry that
Of other power prudence and economy be
ed He would not appropriate harbor where
Nature never intended there should be one
As to the distinction which referred inland seas and
Underwater he thought it wholly unfounded The dis
tincon existed indeed in the common law of Engand-and
for obvious the English naygable only
high up the tide flowed and therefore improvement
above Underwater Improvement above navgabe water
but had rivers and lakes which navgabe three and
four thousand miles above Underwater Our lakes
deep that parts Of them sounding line had
reached bottom Could the principles of the English
law apply to those waters When the Of the law
changed the law changed The principle Of the British
would extend the whole length which internal waters
were open TO navigation. zapaf rs telt
Nor did Mr.. ID. in the other distinction taken to
awfuness Of improving river that flowed through several
States, and not river which flowed through but State
The General Government could build lighthouse this the
President admitted but the lighthouse stand upon the
line between States, be half in State and
the other half in the other The General Government could
make and had made harbor improvements these lay
State He thought the distinction fanciul and baseess
he repudiated entirely He wanted all events the
question finally settled He wanted it known whether Con-
could could not protect the of the country
on all its navgable waters. He for the exercise of the
recognised and exercised in the days Of Pres
dent Washington but he would with economy. No
doubt many unnecessary works might constructed
feared there many Of that description in this bill but
MIR d. acted in regard whole and had voted for the
bill lest he should be misunderstood opposed to its general
principle t3
He glad to perceive in this saving clause for
lighthouses PIERS beacons buoys, &c. and providing refuge
to the lives of That principle broad
enough for hm had been sanctioned by this Government
from its foundation, and he wanted know whether was
to be abandoned not He and always had been OPP
posed TO the system Of internal Improvements by the General
Government that subject he endorsed the doctrine
tanned by Presidents Jackson and Van Buren, though he
thought Gen. Jackson carried far Yet he not for
rejecting in He held that Congress did possess the
power Of protecting all the navgabe
of the country, salt or fresh.
Would be in order 10 commit this bill to the
Committee on Commerce for amendment
The CHAIR replied in the negative
Mr.. BOYD raised question Of order the Of
The debate. tlb Ni est ..A
The CHAIR replied that the question on postpone
ment but it very difficult to limit the discussion within
very precise lines.
MT. BOYD suggested that Mr. DRomeooLK should modify
his motion to order the message to be printed.
Mr.. DROMGOOLE so modified it.
Mr. WENTWORTH moved to amend il by adding the
printing of the recommendations Of the War Department AMI
The estimates from the Treasury Department for the very
items contained in this bill.
Mr.. DOUGLASS (who had temporarily yielded the foor)
resumed and Observed conclusion that the bill
open amendment and he compelled to take ren-
qush it WHOLE he should stand by his original dcterm
nation and vote for the bill.
Mr. THOMPSON, of Pennsylvania referring to the " thrill
Of delight" to which Mr. DRoaeooLE had referred pro-
the construction Of that human bosom in which such docu
ment could occasion thrill of delight That the Chief Ma
gstrae Of the Union should have turned his back all the
principles sanctioned by the wisdom Of the fathers Of the Re-
public might produce in his bosom thrill but Of any
thing but delight He confess he heard the message
with emotions Of the profound regret He Of
those who had given TO the present Chief Magistrate earnest