The Sumter banner. [volume] (Sumterville, S.C.) 1846-1855, 1852-03-30
g Gou- -a,ro Cite s2attne Aat,,1tut,. MI ], :.

bama, were the only two senators
who raised the constitutional qucs,
ton. In that debate MIR. Calhoun
said:
Gas far as the Michigan bill was
concerned, he understood the princi.
pie was simply giving alternate sec.
tions of the public land for the pur.
pose of enhancing the value of the
remainder. Upon this point he would
say that he had not the slightest doubt
that the Government not only had
the right, as proprietor of the public
domain, to grant portions of that do
main for such purpose, but that it
was the duty of the Government to
do so. The Government in his opir,-
ion. ought to be ashamed of allowing
their lands to be enhanced in value
by the cNcrtions and at the cost of
q State, without contributing in some
degree to produce this result"
On that occasion Mr.. Niles, in re-
ply to these observations charged
MIR. Calhoun with inconsistency in
voting for that bill, and with an aban-
donment of his doctrine upon the
subject Of internal Improvement. Mr..
Calhoun replied to the senator from
Connecticut, as follows:
:" lie (Mr. CO. acted now on the
principle on which he had acted from
the beginning; principle perfectly
cloar; and not only was it clearly the
right Of the Government to make
these grants, but he considered that
it was the duty of the Government
to do so. They did not in SO doing
act in their sovereign capacity. The
question of internal improvements
was not at all involved, but simply
that of proprictorship, whether, when
anything was done to enhance the
value Of their lands in the vicinity
Of the works, they wcro not called on
and'bound in good faith to contribute
something as the rroprictors.
He said, further:
'f But, in this, and in all cases where
road passes through the public lands
and application was made when The
work had been commenced, and there
was a reasonable probability that the
value Of the public lands would be
enhanced, he was in favor Of contri.
buting largely, and in so doing lie
abandoned no principle. AS far as
he could iuhgc Of the localities, the
canal would be of vast Importance.
The lands intermediate between the
tcrmini would be greatly increased
in value. AS to the railroad he could
not express any opinion, but was de-
sirous to see it completed, and for
that purpose was willing TO grant the
desired appropriation, on condition
only that the Government should
have the use of it when required for
the conveyance of stores aud troors.'
1t appears that the explanation did
not satisfy Mr.. Niles, he expressed
the conviction that there was no ditlc-
renee at all between voting for the
Cumberland road and for giving alter,
nate sections of the public lands,
Mr.. Colhoun replies:
Mr.. G. remarked, in reply, that
if the gentleman could not sec dis
tinction between the case cf the
General Government, n work under.
taken by the General Government,
and the case in which the Govern.
mcnt, in its proprietary character,
contributes to works undertaken by
States or individuals, he (Nlr. CD
could only express his regret. To
him the difference was rs great as
that between night and day. In the
one case there was an exercise of the
right Of sovereignty, i'll the other
simply that Of owncrship.'
Mr.. Speaker, page after page Of
authorities equally clear and explicit,
from nearly all Of our brightest and
most conservative statesmen, extend
ing through Il period Of more than
twenty years, might be adIluccl, but
! Corbear reading further quotations
lest the House may become wcarried.
The descriptions Of internal improve
mcnts objected to, as l understand,
by the Republican or Democratic
party, is that where the Government
drPropriates money ont Of tie f"Jlic
Treasury for the purpose of building
roads, or constructing canals, i'll Ger.
tain localities. In the first place, it
is said, truly, that Congress has no
right to levy money upon the people
of the United States for the purpose
Of constructing such works. That
power is not granted by the Consti
tuition. Conccding, however, that
the Government possessed the power,
one of the strong objections, and to
my mind an insupcrablc objections,
against the exercise Of it, would be
that you levy money Unfortunately,