Washington sentinel. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1853-1855, 1854-08-09
THE VETO OF THE RIVER AND HAIR
BOR BILL.

tons to the recent River and Harbor bill, is q
very short paper; yet it is, in our Judgment a
very clear and explicitpaper We perceive, how
ever, that some persons, writing from Wash
ington, have in the haste of composition mis-
stated its points in manner which is calcu-
lated to mislead casual reader. For instance,
the Washington correspondent of the Philadel-
phia Ledger says:
"The River and Harbor bill, which passed
the House, with the Senate's amendments, was
vetoed by the President in a curt message,
stating that the President is not opposed to the
general principle of the doctrine of internal i'm
provements; but objects to the particular mode
of its application"
This statement or announcement might very
well convey wrong impression ofthe position
Of the President to any one who had not given
his message careful and attentive considera-
ton. 1t seems to us to convey the idea gener-
ally that the President has committed himself
to the principles of those who sustain the policy
of internalimprovements by the federal govern
ment. Indeed, if the language Of the Ledger's
correspondent was not used hastily, and with
out due reflection as to its import, it must have
been calculated to produce the belief that the
President has abandoned, in his late veto mes
sage, all opposition to general system Of in
ternal improvements by the federal govern.
ment
In our Judgment, the veto, so far from &C
he nj ne he
doctrine of Internal Improvements" actually
repudiates that general principle. The Balti-
more platform AYERS "Mat the Constitution does
not confer upon the general government the
po,oer to commence and carry on a general sys-
tenn Of internal improvements" The Presi-
dent, in his veto message, states distinctly that
his own judgment is opposed to ga general
system Of internal Improvements blythe federal
government" quoting the very language ofthe
resolution adopted at Baltimore. He does not
base his objection on the Constitution alone,
but on considerations Of policy and expediency
also. Independent Of the constitutional ques-
ton, as to the power to commence and carry
on general system Of internal improvements,
he expresses the doubt whether the power could
be exercised by the general government SO as
to render its use advantageous either to the
country at large or effectual for the accomplish
ment of the object contemplated.
The President does draw distinction be-
TWEEN two classes of appropriations Of
which he believes to be permitted, and the other
forbidden, by the Constitution. But that dis
tinction does not sanction "the general princi-
pie Of the doctrine Of internal improvements
If we understand rightly what is meant by that
general principle" the President repudiates it
in the most pointed terms. He draws dis
tinction between appropriations for objects OF
national importance, and such as are demanded
by local interests. A general system, or the
general principle contended for by the advo-
Gates of federal improvements embraces both,
and unites them in the same act of Congress.
The President admits the constitutionality OF
improvements demanded by national interests,
but he denies the constitutionality Of those
which only tend to advance particular localities.
The veto message does not weaken the
Presidents committal to the anti-internal i'm
provement feature of the Baltimore platform.
On the contrary, it repeats and renews that
committal in the most distinct and positive
manner. Yea, more--the very fact that the
veto message was sent in, when considered in
connexion with the grounds upon which it is
based, is equivalent to declaration that items
for local improvements will vitiate q bill other
wise constitutional. This is, in our judgment
matter Of great Importance. 1t is difficult to
draw the line between national and local i'm
provements and to every Improvement bill o.
a national character, the friends of genera
system of improvement will attempt to attach
a long list of local appropriations. The veto
message informs such politicians that Their
labor will be in vain-that they cannot, dur
ing the present administration, make nationa
wants carry through their special enterprises
and that their selfish endeavours can have nc
other effect than to prevent the construction o
such works as may be demanded by the wants
Of the nation.
The objections which the President urges
against the policy and expedency of genera
system of internal improvements, we thinl
must apply to any system whatever, if the op
portunity is afforded for logrolling combina
tions. When an appropriation is asked il
order to construct single and separate i'm
provement, it will hardly be granted, unles
that improvement is one Of national utility
But national Improvement must have loca
habtation; and whilst items are conglomer
ated in the same bill, local combinations will
be formed to deceive the public and magnif
the proportions Of petty local interests to tn
size and bulk Of great national wants. II
impossible for the general government to carr
on any system Of improvement with judgmen
and discretion. It's efforts in that directis
always have been and always will be attende
by extravagant and wasteful expenditure, an
by corrupt and demoralizing influences.
should, therefore, be restricted as much as poi