Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1848-06-24

statsu,ent 10 be true. - tsi ss esastt taf
Mr. FICKLIN replied that he had not expected Q make
speech to-day, and prepared with eerences He
fsrred the gentleman from Vermont TO Eots Debates y the
Convention The projet 10 which he had alluded not
offered in that body by Gen. Hamilton himself but by
Their with his knowledge and appreciation.
Mr.. COLLAMER said that the projet Of Gen. Hamilton
had reference only to the Executive branch of the Gov
ernment 3s at
Mr.. FICKLIN said had also reference the Legislative
power and ehecuay destroy the sovereignty Of the
States another object Of it to give TO Executive the
powers Of a limited monarch.
la voice He has the powers OF unlmited monarch.
In proof Of this Mr. f. would refer the gentleman TO Eli
OTIS Debates to Gen. Hamons speech and to the plan he
advocated in the convention.
Mr. f. found fault with Hamilton for the he pur
sued much human sagaciy could be ex-
peced to do go far Hamilton did, 1t required much
more to go far as Jefferson went
The powers Of the General Government must be admit
ted, the subject of internal improvement ldened
in the constitution. His colleague the opinions Of
Kent and Story and had quoted them coecy but he might
have gone further and quoted the opinions OF those emf
in relation national bank, protective tanlI,
and all those other points which connected with au
dinous Interpretation Of the constitution. There the
starting point All grew out Of that mode Of interpretation
This led them believe that the Government had sovereign
power the currency question: the question Of internal inn
proyemen and many other matters which the two great
parties Of the country had always widely differed. Mr.. F.
said that gentleman from Indiana Mr.. G. b. SmrH) had
presented the question in speech OF his with great
ability and fairness. Congress- that gentleman had we'll
Observed either had power all this matter Of inter-
nal improvement had absolute power il President
Polk right, Mr. Hamilton was right Either the Gem
era Government had nothing to do with it, had absolute
authority it, controlled only by the action Of Congress.
The distinctions insisted by some, that if public
work touched the boundaries of three State national
work, and subject to the action OF Congress, but touch
ed but two, it not that confined to salt water
Congress had power butf II reached fresh Congress
had noal such distinctions these without.
in the constitution was but question: and either Con-
gess had all power it had Believing this Mr.. +.
certainly differed from his colleague another point His
colleague opposed 10 having the constitution amended
Mr. f. favor of it. He hought would be much bet
ter that should be- il would avoid all those difficulties which
the fruitful Of much dispute and difficulty
Some believed that Congress possessed the power others
eonscentiousy believed that it did not Hence it was i'm
possible that gentlemen of the party able
to unite on any general platform of constitutional inter-
probation. 6
His colleague had observed that when the President in his
message, quoted the authority of Mr. Jefferson in oppo
son to the power he at the time proved that that dis
tngushed n favor Of the expedency Of conducting
internal Improvements by the General Government if the
situon bad conferred upon it the power This may have
been in 1906 because that menone Of the mischev
consequences had been developed which had since been
found to flow from the exercise of such power.
Mr.. HUNT here inquired of Mr. FcKLIS whether he
derstood power in the General Government appropriate
for the improvement OF rivers and of the habors the
lakes, included in the power Internal improvements
Mr.. FICkLlN replied that the gentleman from New York
the votes he had uniformly given whenever that question
up. He had always voted against any such appropriations
and this, notwithstanding all the external pressure which
roundeda Western that subject. II required some
fmness for in the midst of those who all strenuous
in favor of the power and of its exercise stand up and
against it. But he had uniformly done aud he would
say explicitly the gentleman from New York (Mr
Hurry that he did consider the improvement Of Western
rivers and the lake habor included in general system of
internal improvements.
If his colleague had looked letter written by Mr. Jee-
in 1924 he would have found that Mr.. Jefferson, how
ever much he might have been in favor Of internal improve
mens by the General Government expedent had then the
utmost horror Of the whole system He the sub
jec both 10 bis relative, Mr. Giles and Mr. Madison, and
exhored them to watch the progress Of the system with the
utmost vigilance and to embrace every opportunity to put it
down. This showed that he utterly opposed both TO the
expedency and constituonaty of the system in 925.
One word as 10 the adoption Of the constitution All must
recolec that the States voted for States and States
only The instrument had been submitted to the peo-
pie OF the United States but TO the States such. The
movement to get up State movement and all the
ton had in It's adoption State action passed upon
BY convention Of States One State adopted tme
and another State at another and there
between the adoption by different States This showed that
was viewed asqueson for the States and had been
expressly provided in the constitution itself that all powers
not therein delegated to Congress reserved to the Ste
or 10 the people.
In regard the expansiveness Of the system Of internal
provements and Its expedency he had we-seed opinions
he had not risen to cast reproaches any any
party on this subject and for the of this power but
he would show very briefly what had been the opinions Of
some of those who have gone before What had been
the opinions Of Thomas Jefferson, who least pillar Of
light to the Democratic party the power and the
dency of exercising And what the lesson which the
experience OF of the Of this Union taught them
When he looked TO his State which had been referred to
by his colleague, he that which should both him
and his colleague pore the consequences Of internal
improvements by States Were roads made because of the
intrinsic merits Of the work No; because votes for
them procured in the Legislature And they knew that
others that were not successful Look at Maryland Look
Pennsylvania, with her forty millions of debt Look oil
the States and they would that IL they had this power ii
was dangerous 10 exercise. The exercise Of that power
should be limited by constitutional enacments they had
and II they had not such power they ought not awessy
exercise IT. He might them say distinctly, and be glad
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Husr) had put the
question to him, that he looked this question Of internal
Improvements Of the dangerous that could be pre-
scented to Congress- II they gave any party in this
try the power TO make internal improvements IL would carry
with every other power and where then the
that might not be squandered Internal improvements II
was great power, which, in the hands Of party, would
able TO bank, distribution, and oil those other projects
and awess acts OF legislation 10 which the Democratic party
has so long srcnuously objected.
the General Government Of the State debts and much he
was opposed TO protective tariff be looked upon them all
secondary to and dependant es this question Of
internal improvements and be would the gentleman
from New York that he opposed II at all times and in