Washington sentinel., 1854-05-06

/ Ialk about the INVASION OF US Dy foreign ma
tions as much as you please as pretext for
assuming powers not granted by the Constitu-
ton; but the strongest security that we have
on those points is a physical law.
shall not go into that question now; but /
undertake to say that, in the face of our navy,
or even without navy, the shipping of Europe
cannot bring, with their munitions, a formida-
Bile force against u.s. With all the resources OF
your naval and maritime marine you could not
transport, tomorrow, to Hungary, Turkey, or
Russia, an army, with its munitions and sup
plies, that would be drop in the bucket in a
| European war, or sufficient to form hardly a
division in the field.
| The idea, then, that these roads in the inte-
rior are made for military purposes, to enable
the rapid concentration OF troops IN time OF
war, is as perfect subterfuge as any to which
intelligent men can resort. 1t is perversion
of the Constitution; it is in defraud of it to
claim the power to make these roads under the
war power. To illustrate my view, take case
which is familiar to the democracy of this
country: Does anybody doubt the exclusive
right Of Congress to legislate for the District OF
Columbia? But could you, under the guise OF
legislating for this District, and in pursuance
of your power to grant charters for District
purposes, charter bank Of the United States?
Could you defraud the Constitution by SUBJ
terfuge of that sort? You can do it just as
much as you can defraud the Constitution un-
der the power ITO dispose of and make all
needful rules and regulations in respect to the
territory, &C., of the United States" by dis
posing of them for other objects than those
defined in the Constitution; or, under the war
power, make roads in cases when the defence
OF the country is not the direct object.
But the gentleman from Ohio Mr.. CAMP
BELL undertook, yesterday, to arraign some
members here as inimical to the west, and in
doing so used one of those expressions which
are becoming idiomatic of late. He said that
we were dumping" into the west.
/ Mr. CAMPBELL. | said "pitching" into
the west
] Mr.. BAYLY. Well, pitching" in. 1t be.
longs to the same class ofexpression as crush
| ing out" and all that sort of idiomatic expires
sions as ! suppose they will be regarded, but
| which are not known, believe in our language,
in the sense which they are now used. They
are significant, nevertheless. But when has
the south ever shown any disposition to "pitch''
into the west?
Mr.CAMPBELL. spoke of Virginia. You
always vote invariably against every appropria-
ton for the Improvement Of the western rivers
and the northern lakes.
Mr.. BAYLY. / am glad the gentleman has
relieved me from some of the remarks which !
intended to have made; | thought his remarks
were meant for the south as whole. But he
confines them now to Virginia This relieves
me. When has Virginia ever shown any en-
nifty to the west?
| Mr.. CAMPBELL. did not say that she had
shown enmity, but that she was opposed to
western interests.
/ Mr.. BAYL1. Opposed to western interests
When did she manifest it?
Mr.. CAMPBELL. | have already told you
that she has voted against every appropriation
for western rivers and northern lakes
Mr.. BAYLY. Did we not at the same time
vote against similar appropriations to our own
State? !? Did we then show more opposition,
taking the gentleman's criterion, to western in
terests than we did to our own? !? Did she man
itest it when she gave to the Union that do
main which, in proportion to the number OF
acres contained in it, is the richest on this
earth? Did she show it, to use another idiom,
when she always stood up" for the free navi-
CATION of the Mississippi, and opposed in every
contingency the abandonment oft? Did she
show her enmity to the west when, in spite Of
all obstacles and difficulties, her statesmen ac-
quired and gave Louisiana to the Union, COM
prising whole tier of States, some of which
| have already come into the Union and others
4
Did she show her enmity when her whole dele
cation voted to bring Missouri, one of the rich
est western States, into the Union, without any
restrictions upon her sovereignty? Did she
show it when she supported-I will not refer
| to the case OF Arkansas, as then we may have
been supposed to have slavery partiality--the
admission of Illinois, when it was vehemently
resisted? Did the south, and especially Vir-
| gnia show her enmity to the west upon that
occasion? No, sir, no. The cases in which
| the gentleman says we have been unfriendly to
the west are those in which, if we have been
unfriendly to anybody, it has been equally to
ourselves.
My friend from Illinois Mr. BIssELLl here
says that we imposed the ordinance Of 1881
upon them. | shall not discuss that question
now, for | should be properly called to order
if should undertake to discuss it; but in a
day or two hope may have the floor to dis
cuss it to the satisfaction of that gentleman.
desire to know of a single instance where
the south, or Virginia particularly has not
shown herself the friend, | might almost say the
foster-mother of the West? ! have referred
the gentleman from Ohio to the course of Vir-
ginia in several cases where / think the inte-
\ rest of the west was concerned. / beg him,
in each Of these instances, to look and see
what was the course of those for whom he
seems to feel more gratitude. Who was it that
was for surrendering the free navigation of the
Mississippi; that opposed the acquisition of
Louisiana? Who was it that opposed the ad
mission of Missouri into the Union? Who
was it that opposed the admission of Illinois
even2 They were not southern men. If the
gentleman from Ohio Mr.. CAMPBELL will
take the pains to recur to the record, he viii
find that that opposition did not come from
the south. But because we are friendly to the
west because we desire to see her prosper, it
does not follow therefore that we are to aban-
don all our constitutional opinions, and that
we are to come here, and, under the guise of
making needfnl rules and regulations in respect
to the Territories, and under the guise Of pro.
yiding for the defence of the country, that we
are to construct for the States from the funds
of the general government their own local i'm
provements.
The gentleman from Ohio Mr.. CAMPBELL
yesterday made another statement in his argu-
ment, which is constantly made here's and
more deceptive one, it appears to me, it is i'm
possible to make. He argued that the grant
of land to these roads was a benefit to the gov
\ ernment; that it enables you to sell your pub.
lie lands more readily. Well, sir, / am aware
that the same idea has been advanced from
! other quarters as high as that of the gentleman