Newspaper Page Text
Wol. VI.
©alette
rED AND PUBLISHED
BY
5. F. GUANDISON.
(ON THE BAY)
annum , payable in advance /
ment, notexceeding/owrteen lines,
cents for the must insertion —
even and a half, each succeeding
itters on business to the editor,
it paid.
[ of Mr. J. S. BARBOUR,
of Virginia,
‘ll for obtaining the necessary
s on the subject of Roads and
,
OUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
>. Barbour, of Virginia, said,
ing the Committee upon this
5 laboured tinder no common
nbarrassment. The magni
t question itself, the ability
ence already evolved in tlie
; the relation in which I stand
ity of my colleagues oh this -
unite to increase the embar
vhich I feel in the discharge
tty incumbent upon me.—
se considerations give me, I
e claim to indulgence, they
arless dischaige of that duty
:ssary and imperative,
i government construct such
canals as ate necessary and
fulfil its constitutional obli-
The solution of this question
whole range of the present
It is a question of power;
power, conferred by that
lich alike marks our powers
ities. The three great in*
of power given to this con
are, its army, its navy, and
f taxation. The duties en
t are, the common defence
>1 welfare. The first pro
neans, the last indicates the
: attained. Its constructive
alts from that grant in the
>n to make all laws necessary
r for carrying into effect the
wer expressly granted. The
en, presents itself to us from
in view—Are roads and ca
sary and proper, in the full
f the powers conferred, in
scharge the duties enjoined?
necessary and proper, as a
providing, maintaining, and
; the army and navy of the
ites? At the threshhold of
y, two objections, of a char
arently insuperable, have
:nted by my colleagues, (Mr.
our and Mr. A. Stephenson.)
>f these gentlemen has told
e light of establishing roads
involves the necessity ofex
risdiction; that exclusive ju
lias been granted in certain
:d cases, and that this enume
xclusive, in cases not enume
the premises were here c or
leduction would be irresisti
i Mr. Chairman, is exclusive
n, in this government, neces
le exercise of this power?—
nd that it is not. Exclusive
n has been granted over the
i which we hold our delibe
id over such other tei ritory,
h the assent of the States, for
inals, dock-yards, and other
lildings. What is the effect
elusive jurisdiction? It ne
carries with it the sole abso
lative powers to the full ex
it jurisdiction. It embraces,
cise, every subject that can j
of legislative, executive, or ■
ignizance. The wise fram-;
instrument under which we j
‘ed this power to be rightful-!
:ly vested in the United States, !
es which have been express
ed. The question recursup
his right of exclusive jurisdic
ssrry, in the construction of
:1s and canals? Cannot this
:nt acquire and hold the right
ty in the soil, w hile the juris
er it is still reposed in the
vernmenls? Numerous in
mid be cited, in which the
may exert a proprietary right,
art from its sovereign rights,
right being once acquired,
iction can arise in enacting
lful rules and regulations as
reserve it? This confedera
pressly vested with authority
DARIEN lllllf GAZETTE.
to make all needful rules and regula
tions that may relate to the territory, or
other property of the United States. —
Exclusive jurisdiction, and the right of
property, are not inseparable. I can
perceive no difficulty in exercising the
control which the right of property
gives to the,one, and the exercise of ju
risdiction by the other government. —
If there be a violation of any private
light, or of any law i elating to the
whole circle of crimes and punishments,
committed upon such soil,then the state
claiming jurisdiction will necessarily
take cognizance of such offences. Its
code of laws supply the rule to redress
the wrong, and punish the delinquent.
This municipal authority, to the ex
tent retained, is soveieign on the part
of the States, and I am unable to dis
cern the least peril of colliding juris
dictions.
The other gentleman from Virginia,
(Mr. S.) denies to this confederacy the
right to acquire lands in the several
sta.es, and if such acquisition could be
made, it must, he says, be held as one
sovereign would hold lands in .the ter
ritory of another. I dissent to both
these propositions. Can gentlemen be
serious in denying to this government,
created for such great purposes, a pow
er which belongs to every coiporate
town, and to every turnpike company
in the several states? This is not .nly
one of the inherent attributes of its in
stitution, but the fifth amendment to
the constitution recognizes the right
to take private propei ty for public uses,
connecting with that right the curiela
live obligation of making just compen
sation to its owner. Can this right ot
acquisition be construed to relate to
personal property only? The United
States have already expended many
millions of its treasure in the purchase
of lands. This right, by purchase, ex
pands itself over the boundless territo
ry washed by the waters of the Missis
sippi, now subdivided into several
states. Is the title to these vast do
mains defective? Are the repiescnta
tivesfrom these states intruders within
this hall? A large portion of territory
was obtained by purchase from the
state of Geoigia—an instance which
will forbid gentlemen from seeking
refuge in the treaty making power, to
shun the force of these precedents.
I apprehend, sir, that tins govern
ment is not bound to hold its lands in
the states subject to all the conditions
which one sovereign may impose on
another. The two systems ot govern
ment were designed to compose one
harmonious and consistent whole, each
moving in its appropriate sphere ot ac
tion, and ministering to the common
weak If there be any proposition
about which there should be no diversi
ty of opinion, it is, that, to the extent
of the powers granted, this government
is supreme; the constitution has so ex
pressed it, and the state courts are po
sitively required to observe and main
tain its legitimate supremacy. But,
are the state governments sovereign?
The 10th section of the first article of
the constitution is filled with limitations
upon the sovereignty of the states. —
I need not point to them—they are
within the knowledge of all. And here
let me take leave to add one further li
mitation—the local authorities are also
controlled to the extent of all the means
necessary and proper to carry into
effect the delegated powers of this go
vernment, be the means “municipal”
or otherwise. This limitation is the
obvious result of that clause of the con
stitution which claims for itself, and
gives to its laws, a supreme control.—
The conclusion seems to me inevita-
I ble, that this government may acquire
! a proprietary right of soil, for national
; purposes, within the several states; that
j this right of property draws after it
i the power to make all needful rules
i and regulations affecting it, and that
these poweis may be rightfully exert
ed independent on all local authority.
Congress can claim no other powers
than such as are expressed, and those
which are incident to the express grant.
There is no language in this constitu-.
tion, as in the articles of confederation,
to exclude implied powers; on the con
trary, this class of powers is bestowed
by positive words. The express pow
'ersarethe result of express grant—
those which are incidental, must, from
their character, necessarily be the re
sult of legislative discretion, limited by
the terms of the constitution. No safer
rule of construction can be furnished,
than to interpret the words of the in
DARIEN, (georoia,) <£qua! anti <£jract TUESDAY, MAY li, 1824.
strument in their plain and obvious
sense, neither enlarged by a spirit of
encroachment, nor checked by an un
wise denial of the necessary powers to
effect the great design of its creation.
No constitution can do more than draw
the general boundaries of the govern
ment to which it gives being: To
mark the various divisions of its power,
would have been a task endless and im
practicable. Where, in this instru
ment, can be found a grant of express
power, which does not necessarily re
quire others of a character incidental
and auxiliary? Powers that are vital
to the existence of the government, and
without which, it would be unworthy
of the wisdom which ceated it; and un
fitted to secure the welfare of the peo
ple. The security for the faithful em
ployment of these powers will be found
in the wisdom and virtue of those, who
are chosen to be the guatdians of the
public interest. It will be found in the
language of the constitution, which li
mits their exercise arid forbids usurpa
tion; and if these should prove ineffec
tual safeguards, there remains the
great conservative principle, which
spi ings from the frequency of elections.
So long as this- power remains in the
hands of the people, there is no danger
of abuse. Jealous of their just rights,
and possessed of an ample remedy, they
will not forbear to employ it, when duty
shall bid them to act.
I shall not seek to derive the power
in question from that clause which re
lates to post offices and post roads.—
The argument of the Hon. Speaker,
and that of the gentleman from New
York, (Mr. Slot is,) have clone so much
justice to this branch ofthe inquiry, as
to make any effort on my part, worse
than idle. If I can satisfy the commit
tee that this is is a necessary incident to
the militaiy and naval power of the
United States, t flatter myself that I
shall have accomplished all that duty
requires. If the end be lawful, and
within the legitimate purpose of the
constitution, it draws alter it all the
means necessary and proper to attain
that end. If this be not true, then the
language in which the constitution it
self is written, has losi its meaning, and
the government it creates is a mockery
upon the intentions of its framers.
Congress has power to provide and
maintain armies and navies, as instru
ments necessary for the common de
fence—one ofthe great duties charged
upon the Union. Connected with these,
express power is granted to erect forts,
arsenals and dock yards. For what
purpose are you to build forts? They
suffice the purposes of defence, but
they must be filled with troops, cannon,
small arms, and all the munitions of
war. The means of transporting these,
are just as necessary as the forts them
selves. The road that conducts to the
fort, is indispensable to its useful main
tenance. Again, for the purpose of
building a navy, you may erect dock
yards. Can it be supposed, that all the
vast variety of material for ship build
ing could be growed, manulactured,
and obtained, in the dock yard itself?—
Can these be had but by the means of
transportation? Without roads and ca
nals to your torts and dock yards, the
purpose indicated by their establish
ment would be physically impractica
ble. The relation here, between the
means and the end, is not only direct ,
immediate and appropriate , but abso
lutely and indispensably necessary. —
Will such roads canals and be taken as
parts ofthe forts & dock yards; or as ne
cessary to their existence? If the former,
then the power belongs to that class
which is conferred by express grant.
If the latter, they are necessary and
proper, and are classed with the inci
dental powers, by the plain letter of
the constitution.
But, it is said that, if the power ex
ist to cut roads and canals for forts and
dock yards, they must be limited by the
necessity that creates them; and that,
having created them for these uses, the
power to create ceases, with the use in
which they are employed. Ifthe Uni
ted States possess this power in any
case, it obviates most of difficulty
offered to its exercise, in all cases; in
asmuch as it developesthe existence of
this power, without involving exclusive
jurisdiction, but carrying a right of
property in the soil, and a consequent
authority to enact all needful rules and
regulations, in rlation to that property.
Let us, however, Mr. Chairman, ex
amine this question, so far at it is an in
cident to the aggregate military pow
er of this government. For what end
is this power given, and for what pur
pose may it be rightfully employed?—
The constitution supplies the answer:
“for the common defence and general
welfare.” I shall net contend that this
language was designed to infuse power
into this confederation, but its manifest
intent is to impose an obligation. The
duty which it ; enjoins is co-exlensive
witli the entire limits of this expanded
and expanding Union. Your armies,
with all the circumstance of war, are
to be marched and transported through
out the almost boundless extent of these
states. The untrodden wilderness is
to be traversed, not only by the foot
steps of the soldier, tut all the muni
tions of war must accompany him.—
What means are most plainly adapted
to this end 7 Gentlemen have said that
post toads were not necessary, on the
pan of this government, because popu
lation precedes the necessity loi post j
roads; and that highways will be pro-!
vicled, which suffice for p >st roads.— !
But, can this be the case, in the exer- j
tion of the militaiy power? The pop-1
ulated portions of our country are not |
the usual theatre of battles. The abode ,
ol civilization cannot be visited by the j
horrors of war until the frontier is pass
ed. There often exists the strongest
necessity to transport troops to the most
remote quarter. The peace, the safe
ty, and the lives of our people, frequent
ly depend upor the rapidity of this
transportation. Asa mean to accom
plish the end, to discharge the most
sacred and positive duty required by
the constitution, roads and canals are
strongly necessary. They are so, as
it further means of promoting an econ
omy of treasure and of blood. Can it
be thought, that this necessity exists
only in war? Sir, I know of no power
belonging to this government, with
which it is not as fully clothed in peace
as in war. In wa-, when all the resour
ces of the nation ate necessary for its
successful operation, it is practicable
to commence and prosecute a system
of interna) improvements? Peace is
t;ie season of preparation. In war, all
our means are wanted to conduct us in
safety, through its perils.
If that be the only period in which it is
constitutional to create military roads,
it is alike the period when it is utterly
impracticable, and if this argument be
just, it amounts to a total denial of all
authority over this subject. A state of
war renders it impracticable, although
then admitted to be constitutional; in
peace it is alone practicable—but, ac
cording to this argumeut, it is then un
constitutional. The effect of this mode
of construction is to demand duties,
and deny, at the same moment, the
means of discharging them. As an in
cident to the military power, they are
eminently useful. They augment the
safety of the nation at home, and in
crease its respect abroad. In this view,
public confidence is enhanced, while
foreign nations are counselled to re
spect a people, at all times ready to
protect themselves; they tend to pro
mote economy in the various employ
ment and expenditure of the whole mi
litary power of the Union. By attain
ing these great objects, our indepen
dence, honor, and prosperity, are de
fended and secured; and, if so, can there
exist a rational doubt that they are ne
cessary and proper in providing for the
common defence of the whole United
States, and are, therefore,constitutional?
I beg leave to offer a further view of
this question. The experience of past
ages, and the counsels of our ow n con
stitutions, instruct us, that the chief de
fence of a free people must rest upon
its militia.
Trained to arms, and conversant with
their duties, they are the defer.dets of
our liberties, not only against external
invasion, but against those internal
commotions, the consequences of un
principled ambition. To the assaults
of a naval enemy, a large portion of
our country is peculiarly vulnerable.
If we rely upon the militia as an arm
of defence, it behoves us to provide the
facilities of rapid transportation to each
assailable point. Such an enemy will
be always clothed with a capacity to
fly or fight, as his inclinations may di
rect. Your means of resistance must
eminently depend upon the prompt
ness with which you can gather your
forces around him. Should you not
provide these facilities, the government
must station regular troops at the num
berless assailable points. Apart from
the vast expense of such a military es-
tablishmem, I shudder for the dangers
with which it wbujd encompass the li
berties of the people Standing armies
have always been as engines of
despotism, and as hovilKto the exist
ence of all free institutions. The kin
dred affections, by which all fta parts
aie tied together, the attachment to its
chief, which is locked up in the arms
of military discipline, the esprit du corps
which is its strongest sentiment, united
with that principle which counsels man
to fee! power while he forgets right, all
combine to fill the public mind with
alarm and with jealousy towards such
establishments.
The time was, when it became neces
sary to augment the powers of the
states to their utmost limits, by enlarg
ed rules of construction. A spirit of
encroachment had found its way into
the administration of the confederacy,
which many ofuur wisest headsaod pur
est hearts believed to threaten the pre
servation of popular government. The
freedom of the press was trammelled
and the liberty of speech denied. It
was in the state governments alone,
that these rights were fuiiv possessed.
Upon their ramparts the banner of re
tesistance was planted; and through
their agency a resolution of public sen
timent was achieved, which allayed the
fears of the people, and stayed the test
less march of power. In the ardor of
patriotic devotion, and in the zeal which
a glorious cause inspired, it is not mat
ter of surprise, that a aphere of action
should be allotted to the states, which
might be incompatible with the full
exertion of ail the functions of the con
federated government. The events of
the late war supplied us with some
monitory lessons upon this subject.
These cannot be forgotten; some of
them are traced in blood, and otheia
will long remain as monuments of hu
man error, and of the fallacy of those
errors were “reason is left free to com
bat them.” Does the Hon. member
from Vermont recollect that under
the pretext of stale rights, the govern
or and captain general of his own state
invoked his miltia, by proclamation, to
abandon the service of the United States,
at the very moment a powerful foe was
endeavoring to devastate our northern
frontier, and to whelm it in the horrors
of war? Whose patriot yeomanry
wear the honor of repelling with scorn
and indignation this unworthy imita
tion? What but those rules of rigid
construction supplied some ofthe north
ern members of this confederacy,
with the hollow pretence of state rights,
to strip the national arm of some of the
most salutary powers? Nor was this
all; measures were concerted, to arest
and divert the revenues; of the nation,
a convention of delegates assembled,
whose agents were deputed to beard
the government in the moment of its
greatest extremity; to paralyze the
measures of resistance, and to proclaim
its importance to an arrogant and in
sulting foe, who openly threatened to
lay waste every assailable point; the
camp itself became the forum of con
stitutional exposition; no one who cher
ishes an exulting pride in the glory of
his coutry, or that has a heart to feel
for its calamities, can forget the
scene before Queenstown Heights.
A gallant chief conducted our undisci
plined troops into the enemy’s coun
try. Victory has already perched up
on our standard, when the cooperating
aid of expecting re-inforcement was
suddenly checked by constitutional dif
ficulties. Disasters speedily cluster
ed over our hopes, and a nation’s hon
or wept and blushed over the was
ted blood of our people, and the sullied
lustre of our arms. A construction
widely different was given by the peo
ple of the west, and as different was
the result. They sought the foe, they
fought and conquered him; triumph sat
upon their brow, and the joy of victo
ry gladdened a nation’s heart. A practi
cal illustration is here presented of
these two systems of constitutional con
struction.
It is time to adopt jus{ and whole
some principles of interpretation. I
have no pleasure in refering to instances
of delinquency, nor should I have done
so, but for the anxious fears which gen
tlemen express for the rights of states,
and an apprehension of a departure
from those rules of construction which
they deemed sacred. For the preser
vation of those rights, I feel a solici
tude as deep and as anxious as any mem
ber here. While I cherish this senti
ment, I csinot be insensible to the dan*
JVo. 17.