New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1847-07-15

Observation-Disclosures suftce 70 turON INTO h3s'Si'
even those who profess TO be favorable TO the Cd
jects thus promoted. We must take esre-l0oA
shsrp--watch narrowly, or the Constitution VIII Dc
subverted and Freedom crushed by the ouloihs u
few piers and the clearing out OF the chsnne" 0i
certain rivers Was ever such cause oil spPre
hension coniured up before
But look at Gov Wnght's timidly suggested
Limitation TO River Improvements They must De
confined to Rivers and parts Of Rivers Wnereoh
Commerce already exists and not extended 70
those previously uDsasceptible Of Navigation FOR
instance. the Red River Of the Southwest is lOr
was utterly distracted by the famous hsit Dol ia'
above It's mouth and Of course, so long as tns' eO
solutely prevented all navigation above oniese
port its removal was unconstitutional but II II
mad been only half a. injurious as it really Was-h
i, had not utterly prevented navigation Dh ailo"'
ed small hardy steamboats, 10 work through or owe
under and thus vanqDish IT, then 1t might 90 70 Ie'
the Government pull it in pieces and remove II
n. extreme iniuriousness affords the reason lot
n,e.ervng II in Difference 10 the immortal hesolu'
tom. Of gs and in view Of the fact that nothing Is
aid NJ the Red River Raft in the Federal Const'-
/
in q stilted drama paradoxcaly exclalms
NY wound Ia great because 1t 10 90 small
on hearing which wsg in the pit sung oct
Then twould be greater were II none At all
Gov Wright has evidently studied logic and Con
stitutional law in this school
In the same mistaken spirit, Mr. DAVID Dudley
Field, of our City, when arguing before the Con
vention in favor ola strict construction and display
Ing the awful perls Of attudinarian views ana po-
Icy on this subject being asked, DO you CONSIDER
an appropriation for the improvement OF the LII
,nois River Constitutional - Does IT not run
through more than one State1 was his Yankee
answer. "Noi Nor responded a hundred voices
aTben do nat consider it Constitutional was his
response Now the principle here aimed at may
be sound vet the application be ilagrantly blunder
ing. A River may be wholly in one State yet us
navigation be immensely important 70 dozen-as
the Hudson. for example-while another may ron
through two or States yet its navigation be a
less important TO any or 10 all. Thus the Chesa
peake and Delaware Canal. only few miles long
living wholly within the limits OF the smallest state
in the Union is plainly work OF great National
importance while the Delaware and Hudson ten
times as long and penetrating two great States Is
palpably local in its character and uses Mr. Fields
distinction is i'll taken and worthless
But do you hold that the Hudson may be Con
additionally improved was the next question
q" Beloic a Custom. House may, replied Mr. Field
Here was revived in essence the very distinction
between salt and fresh water improvements which
Mr. r had Just before most empbstcally repudi
ated And is il not most ialacious and irratona
distinction Consider its practical effect IN filling
the Country with inland Custom Houses-at IT
Louis, at Albany, at Pittsburgh, &c.-to the per
nicous multiplication Of Offices and the sensible IN
crease of our public burdens Who can seriously
regard il as more Constitutional TO improve the
Ohio with a Custom House at Pittsburgh than j
the goods had paid duties at Cincinnati, Louisville
or even New Orleans Who does not see that the
doctrine here enuncated makes the improvement
of our Rivers subordinate entirely to the raising o.
Revenue, while the facilitston Of Commerce anc
the promotion of National wellbeing are made the
merest incidents OF the Taxing power. Instead
raising Revenue for purposes OF general beneh
cence, we tolerate such purposes as incidental t
the raising Of Revenue. protest.
Chicago p Mr. f. was asked. Was there any
Harbor here already 2 he quered in turn. Here
is Mr.. Wrght's distinction again. But Just con
slider it for a moment. Suppose there had beer
originally dozen perfect Harbors on the southern
coast of Lake Michigan with half dozen needlDt
some work to render them safe and accessible
these latter being needed only for local sccommo
do,iop noight not their Improvement have beer
very fairly deferred to local and personal enterprise
on the ground asserted by Col Benton that they Il
truth 'harbored nothing but the interests OF thei
owners Now take the actual case OF the entlr'
coasts of Lake Michigan nine hundred miles IN eS
tent and covered with Commerce, yet without
single natural harbor or place Of refuge for vessel
in storm. who can doubt that the construction {
one or more Harbors is imperatively demanded b
considerations of National and general well being
/ No matter if they have to be made entirely
scooped out Of the shifting sands aud fortified b
extensive piers--the very fact that they must b
expensive puts them beyond the reach OF prvst
enterprise or local exertion. The greater the nat
| raj defciency-the necessity for Harbors beng o
! vious and conceded--the more palpable the nece
/ sity and thus the Constituuonallty OF Natonal i
| terPOstion
Il must close abruptly, being summoned to II
/ DAYS Journey before me. WIN not each console
ate reader follow out the train of thought suggeste
aud draw the fitting conclusions H. c.
The Case of Oliver smiths VIII.
The arguments of the opposing counsel-M
| Webster and Mr. Choate--in this case were di
tinguished for their logical acumen and high Int
lectual polish. They were. too, characteristic
the authors Mr. Choate's had all the copiOus II