The Evansville daily journal. [volume] (Evansville, Ia. [i.e. Ind.]) 1848-1862, 1852-09-07

Under the above head, the Times, for the
first time, ventures to poke its head out OF It's |
she'll, in reference to the important matter of
River and Habor Improvements. Probably
the editor can understand the meaning of the /
article in question, or its object, yet we are
certain but few readers form any definite |
idea of its intent and purpose. He sets off
with an allusion to article taken from the
New Hampshire Patriot, which is of course a
defence of Gen. Pierce's votes in Congress,
and thus far an attack on Gen. Jackson, in !
asmuch as the very bills Pierce voted against
were approved by sold Hickory" It'then
quotes or misquotes Humphrey Marshall, as
though he were the embodiment of all Wing
gerry, and the Wing party were responsible
for every word he uttered. The editor then
alludes to the late River and Harbor Bill, just
passed Congress, and says sour opinion OF
that bill sour readers already know. He
believes it unconstitutional. Why! Because
1t appropriates more to the East than to the
West! A precious constitutionalist is this
editor. But, he continues, the Democratic
Committee on Commerce, added to the ap-
preparations made to the West, several add
tional appropriations, each one of which was
constitutional. Why! because demanded
by the public interest" says this remarkable
young man-therefore, everything demanded
by the public interest is constitutional! We
have no reply to make to such reasoning as
this. He declares the whole bill unconsti
tutional, because it gives more to the East
than to the West, yet Democratic Commit
tee is perfectly right in giving over three hun
dred dollars neutrality-suspicious.
which are constitutional because demanded
by the public interest! The remainder of
this deeply profund article is principally in
allusion to Mr.. Marshall, but not at all cal
culated to destroy him.
We should like to reply to this article, if we
could possibly understand it. After three dis
tinct, readings, the only idea we gain of what
the editor wishes to instruct his readers about,
is that he believes this bill unconstitutional, but
&c it gave as much for the West as for the
East,.it would be perfectly constitutional
and that every appropriation demanded by
the public interest, is constitutional. Now,
every appropriation in this bill is demand
ed by the public interest of certain sections
of country, it follows by this reasoning that
every appropriation is constitutional, and
therefore contrary to his belief, the whole
bill is constitutional
1t is too late in the day to argue, that the
General Government has not the power to
make appropriations for the purpose of i'm
proving the rivers and harbors of the country.
Congress ha established the CONSTITUTIONAL
ty of such appropriations again and again
and Democratic Presidents have sustained
them. President Polk as an exception
placed himself in opposition to past prece.
dents. and boldly declared that the Govern
ment had not the power under the Constitu
ton TO make appropriations for rivers runin,
bet,oeen States, &c. We should like to see an,
Western editor or politician at this day, bacl
Dir. Polk in the views given in his Veto Mes
sage on the River and Harbor bill passed Gu
ring his administration. But here is an edi
tor declaring the late bill, which we suppos
is by this time law, unconstitutional. Ye
this bill was passed by the Democrat
House, by majority of lO3 to rs; and b,
the Democratic Senate, by a majority of 8
to 33. Passed by large vote in the pres
ent Democratic Congress! Even the Demo
ocratic Representative from this Dirtrict vo
ted for the bill. >Of the Indiana declaration
the following gentlemen voted for the BILL
Lockhart, Davis, Fitch, (Democrats) Parke,
Brenton, (Whigs.) Against it-Dunhan
Robinson and Hendricks. German en-
Mace were not present, or else lodged
Now this bill made the following apppro