The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1848-07-22
Mr.. STEPHENS dsclaimed the statement OF his col


Mr. IVERS0N answered only for himself. He did
not believe the existence of this power, nor did he re-
gard the OF the Savannah river as an exception TO
The rule but he would enter upon the constitutional
argument He relied upon the force OF the conclusions
Of the veto message upon this subject Inc oosuctohs
were not put into the mouth of the Savannah river by
this government They were placed there by the people
10 protect the city from the ncuslons oil the enemy dq
ring the revolutionary war. Upon whom then should
resi- the burden of removing these distractions! Certain
Nv upon those who benefited and protected by them
originally Besides, the State of Georgia had asked and
obtained leave TO levy tonnage duties to enable her TO
remove these distractions
He looked at the political ancestry of the gentleman
from Georgia, Mr. STEPHENs,l his colleague, and
showed him have descended from the strict consruc
,ionsshe Staterghts party OF 1888. leading article
Of whose faith was, that there was power delegated
10 Congress for the purposes OF internal Improvement
and if this remained true, where did the gentleman now
derive his power to the distractions to the
cation of the Savannah any other river' For the diff
ference this case, and any other rver Improvement was
as the difference
"'Twixt tweedle dunn and twecde-dee,
Which Tor my life ns'er could see."
He argued that if it important that these obstruc-
tons should be removed his native State would about
il. and do it, But he expressed his belief that the
mova of these distractions not important to the
navigation of the Savannah river.
He adverted TO the history of the party to which the
gentleman his colleague, belonged to show the facility
questions OF national bank OF notification, OF the tariff
internal improvement, &C. The gentleman belonged
once TO the notification party, which in 1882 will
ing TO rend the Union to get rid of an unconstitutional
protective tariff and where do you find the same
parys They following and trucking in the lead
of northern manufacturer. The party had abandoned
every principle which they formerly avowed And now
he inquired what great principle they would advocate
IN the coming contest for the presidency? What princi
ple except that of availability Formerly in their pres
dental contents, the wing party stood like men upon
the platform of principle; but now, like Children they
stood upon the platform of no principle.
With respect to the consistency of that party touching
the introduction and management about the item for the
Savannah Improvement he reminded the House that the
chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means, at an
earlier period OF the session, declared that he would not
take money out of the treasury for any object OF internal
improvement, SO long we have to borrow the money
for the purpose. What the present, but case Of
borrowing money for improvement?
Hewent to show how II was attempted to force
democrats to vote Tor obnoxious this bill
and to tempt the mness of the President to give it his
approval But he alleged his belief that the Presidents
rmness would prove sufficient for the trial, and that if
the bill should be passed with this unconstitutional fea
mre in it, he would meet it with his veto
He invoked the majority to act more manly part than
incorporate this Objectionable and unconstitutional pro-
vision in the general appropriation bill 1t but
another movement in their great game of tckery which
they practised so successfully in 1910.
In conclusion he alluded to the treatment which Mr.
Clay has received the hands OF his party
pie of warning to all aspiring whglings who expect
ing rewards for their services.
When Mr. Us hour expired
Mr. SMITH of Indiana obtained the floor,
And then the House adjourned.