OF Trilul
RIGHT AND THE DUTY
lOF THI T1
AMERICAN lNION
TO IMPROVE, ITS
NAVIGABIE WATEtS,
TN
A SPEECH
SAMUEL B. R UGGLESSi
AT
CONSTITUTION HALL, IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK,
OTOPCToBER 8. 1852.
NEW  _YOTRK: 
BAKER, GODWIN & CO., PRINTERS,
CORNER NASSA\UJ AND SPRUCE STREETS.
1.852.








DEFENCE
OF THE RIGHT AID THE DUTY OF THE
AMERICAN UNION
TO IMPROVE ITS
NAVIGABLE WATERS.
IN A SPEECH BY
SAMUEL B. RUGGLES,
AT CONSTITUTION HALL, IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK,
OCTOBER 8, 1852.
A MEETING was held, on the evening of the 8th October, 1852, at CONSTITUTION HALL, in the city of New York, for the purpose of hearing an address from
SAMUEL B. RUGGLES, Esq., upon the subject of the Improvement of Rivers
and Harbors, by the National Government. The meeting was called in consequence of the compliance of Mr. RUGGLES with the request conveyed in the
following letter:
NEW YORK, Tuesday, Oct, 5,1852.
HON. SAMUEL B. RUGGLES-Dear Sir: Among the issues of the pending
Presidential Canvass, our city has special interest in that which relates to
the duty of the National Government to aid the National Commerce, by the
improvement of our Rivers and Harbors.
We take the liberty, on behalf of a large number of our fellow-citizens,
to request that you will address them upon this subject at as early a day as




2
may suit your convenience. Your tormer connection with this matter as President of the Board of Commissioners of the Canals of this great State,works truly national in their relations,-the distinguished abilities which you
brought to the discharge of the duties of that high position, and the general
interest which you have always manifested in the subject, lead us to look to
you with confidence for information upon it which may be useful in the coming
contest.
Trusting that you may find it convenient to comply with our wishes in
this respect.
We are, very truly, four obedient servants,
DANIEL LORD,             CHARLES KING,
JAMES G. KING,           SIMEON DRAPER,
WM. B. ASTOR,            J. J. ASTOR,
C. AUGUSTUS DAVIS,  H. J. RAYMOND,
GEORGE W. BLUNT,   MOSES MAYNARD, Jr.,
JOHN WARD,               A. WAKEMAN,
(and many others.)
The meeting was organized by the appointment of CHARLES AUGUSTUS
DAVIs, Esq., Chairman, and GEORGE W. BLUNT, Esq., Secretary.
The letter of invitation having been read, Mr. RUGGLES addressed the
meeting, as follows:
MR. CHAIRMAN AND GENTLEMEN: I am here this evening, upon your
kind invitation, to address you on the subject of the improvement, by the
Government of the United States, of the Rivers and Harbors, required for
the safety of our National Commerce.
The flattering manner in which you have referred to my former connection with the public works of this State, deserves my grateful acknowledgements; and I beg to assure you, that any efforts I may have made to hasten
the completion of these great channels of commercial intercourse, are more
than repaid by this proof of your regard. I hope that you will permit me to
add, in justice to myself, that these efforts never, had any personal object,
beyond the satisfaction of contributing, in some small measure, to the general
good.
The proper improvement of the great navigable waters of the Union, to
render them safe and convenient for its rapidly expanding commerce, is a sub-:ject highly important to the American People. It ought to be above and
beyond all party conflicts; but I regret to perceive that it is deeply involved
in the approaching Presidential Election.
The Whig party, to which we belong, have now been urging, for many
years, the improvement of our Rivers and Harbors by the National Govern



3
ment. Their opponents deny such improvements to be constitutional or necessary, or claim that, if necessary at all, they should be made solely by the
separate States.
It was some years, before the issue on this question was presentedin the
precise form I have above stated; but recent events have brought it distinctly
in this shape before the American people; and it now forms the most prominent, among the features which distinguish the contending parties. In discussing the merits of the candidates now before us, I shall therefore seek to
confine myself strictly to the attitude they respectively occupy, in relation to
this great question. Above all I shall endeavor to avoid personalities, and
shall cheerfully follow the example recently set by General CASS, one of the
most eminent of our opponents, and admit at once that both the candidates
are men of patriotism and honor.
The fundamental position taken by the Whigs, who claim that the Nation
should make the necessary River and Harbor improvements, is that the navigable waters of the United States, for all purposes of commerce known to
the Constitution, are national waters. On the other hand, our opponents
contend that those waters are not national, but local, and that their improve.
ment should be exclusively committed to the respective States. They further
propose that, for the purpose of such local improvements, Congress should
now consent that each S ate may lay tonnage duties on that portion of our
navigable waters falling within its limits. It is this latter proposition, comparatively of recent origin, which we deem particularly destructive and alarming,
and we oppose it not only as impracticable and inexpedient, but as unjust, unconstitutional, and denationalizing.
For what is the Nation of which we are a part? What are its navigable
waters? What is its commerce? What is its Constitution?  And what
rights does that Constitution confer, and what obligations does it impose, in
respect to the national commerce?
The Nation occupies an important portion of the earth, and stands among
the great continental powers of the civilized world. Embracing twenty
degrees of latitude in the temperate zone of the Norlh American Continent,
and stretching through nearly sixty degrees of longitude from the Atlantic to
the Pacific, it covers the whole Continental expanse within those vast limits.
In territorial area, it is now nearly as large as Europe; but running down to
the verge of the tropics, it has a much greater variety of climate and culture,
and far exceeds the whole of Europe in every element of continental
strength.
It has more ready access than Europe to the two oceans-the great highways of the globe-and lying ten degrees nearer the equator, its geographical position, in any great national or commercial struggle, will be much more
convenient and commanding.




4
But in one-all-important respect, it very far exceeds Europe; for it has,
what Europe has not-one vast, unbroken chain of navigable waters, overspreading its interior, and nearly covering its whole territorial area, binding all
its portions in commercial and political unity, and thus concentrating to a
degree the world sees nowhere else, the national power of a continent.
In the providence of God, this great portion of the earth has been committed to our care. Let us, therefore, look at it a little more minutely, and
see what it contains.
We find it to be about three thousand miles wide, of which two thousand
are spread out in one vast plain, lying nearly midway between the two oceans.
This plain is separated by the Alleghany Mountains on the East from the
Atlantic, and by the Rocky Mountains on the West from the Pacific. The
remaining portions of the Continent, which are comparatively mere fragments,
consist of a narrow belt, less than two hundred miles wide, between the Alleghanies and the Atlantic, and a broader belt about eight hundred miles wide
between the Rocky Mountains and the Pacific.
This plain is drained by one great river, and it is so nearly level with the
surface of the earth, that the river and all its tributaries are susceptible of
unbroken navigation. The great valley which they drain is not only of unequalled agricultural fertility, but in its unrivalled capacity for inland commerce,
it possesses the vital element which must make it dominant, as the central seat
of empire.
The great problem, therefore, for us, the American people, to work out, was
to connect this valley by adequate means of commercial intercourse, first with
the Atlantic, and, in due time, with the Pacific.
The first step in the process has been accomplished. Employing as parts of
the' system the great chain of lakes, which lie on the North-eastern border of
the valley, we have constructed artificial channels, which connect the Mississippi in an unbroken line of navigation with the Atlantic, so that streams of
inland trade, secure from foreign aggression, and, as yet, from local interference, are flowing throughout all our territory lyingr east of the Rocky Mountains.
The history of this nation, which now covers little more than two hundred
years, discloses two important facts. First-that Providence has undoubtedly
designed to build up on this Western Hemisphere, one great, homogeneous
Power; and next, that the navigable waters of the United States, and the
Constitution of the United States, are the two great instrumentalities by which
that design is to be effected. Our history forms only a part in that great progress; but it has carried us to a point, from which we can clearly survey the
past and, to some extent, discern the future.
Without attempting any minute historical detail, we may say, generally, that
America was civilized bv several European nations, of different tongue and




5
race. Spain seized the South, France the North, England the middle which,
was itself subdivided into thirteen separate colonies; and Holland and Sweden
each attempted to snatch a part, but were soon displaced. For more than a
hundred years, France not only kept its portion, but added to it the whole of
the Mississippi valley. Men are yet living, who have seen the territory, now
occupied by this nation, divided among these three European powers. In 1763,
France surrendered its portion to England, and twenty years afterwards, in
1783, England surrendered to its thirteen colonies, then become States, all
between the Atlantic and the Mississippi. By subsequent negotiations, within
the last fifty years, they have acquired the residue between the Mississippi and
the Pacific.
By these successive operations, the motley groups of European colonists
that came out two hundred years ago to divide this continent, have been fused
into one common mass, and the Continent of America now stands united before the world.
The most curious feature in this progress, is the slow rate at which we
first advanced. To us of the present hour, somewhat accustomed to the giant
pace with which the nation makes its way, the fact is hardly credible that,
after sixty years of struggle, the Pilgrims of Massachusetts found their west.
ern frontier on the Connecticut River, while all the energies of the New-Netherlands could push the Dutchmen no further west than the Mohawk, sixteen
miles from Albany.
In fact, down to the breaking out of the American Revolution, and up to
its close, very little was known of America west of the Alleghanies. The
thirteen colonies, thinly sprinkled along the narrow belt between the mountains and the Atlantic, looked almost exclusively to the ocean, for the means
of commercial intercourse. They dealt mainly with the parent State, very
little with each other, and not at all with the great interior beyond the Alleghanies. Not a carriage road of any description led into it; and it lay at the peace
of 1783, a vast wilderness, all but unbroken, through which the Mississippi
and its tributaries were flowing in solitude, undisturbed by civilized man.
But the moment the peace of 1783 extended the Western boundary of the
United States to that river, the men of the day began to turn their attention to
this great acquisition. They had gone through the Revolution, under certain Articles of Confederation, intended mainly for military purposes, and which had
worked badly enough even in that respect. Their affairs were managed by a
Federal Congress, in which each State had a vote. An ordinance was introduced into that body by Mr. JEFFERSON, in 1784, for the government of a portion of the territory beyond the mountains, but it was wholly silent on the
subject of commerce or navigation.
And now the Mississippi is first seen, dimly foreshadowing its future power as a great element of American unity. Some of our statesmen caught




glimpses not only of its geographical extent, and the wide-spread development of its valley, but also of its vital political importance, as a great seat of
empire and perpetual bond of National Union. But a stream possessing such
power and attributes was a new fact in the history of human civilization. In
Asia, the eagle eye of ALEXANDER the Great may have seen something a little
like it in the Indus, but Western Europe afforded no example. Its scanty
and ragged peninsulas projecting into the Atlantic from the Eastern Continent, could hold no such basin. The two small British Islands dismembered
from that Continent, furnished us language and laws, but no idea of a river.
But even the trifling streams of Europe were not wholly without instruction. In England, the tyranny of King JOHN six hundred years ago, in obstructing some of their little rivers, led the bold reformers at Runnymede to
insert " freedom of rivers " as a fundamental clause in Magna Charta; while
on the Continent, darkened by diplomacy, the treaty of Westphalia in 1648,
deliberately locked up the navigation of the Scheldt, a valuable commercial
stream leading into the German Ocean, and in the face of civilized Christian
Europe, kept it locked up nearly a century and a half.
It was under the salutary instruction thus afforded by the Scheldt, and just
before the French Revolution broke its shackles, that our'thirteen Confederated States acquired the Mississippi.
In March, 1785, RuFus  KING, then a delegate from Massachusetts in the
Congress of the Confederation, received from TIMOTHY PICKERING a letter
containing these emphatic and memorable words:
" The water communications in that country will always be in the highest
degree interesting to the inhabitants. It seems very necessary to secure the
freedom of navigating these to all the inhabitants of all the States. I hope we
shall have no Scheldts in that country."
The high duty of carrying into effect that great suggestion, immediately occupied the attention of Mr. KING and his associates. The honor of framing the
clause-which secures, " not for a day, but for all time," freedom of commerce
over an unbroken net-work of navigable water spread out for more than sixteen thousand miles —was shared between Massachusetts and Virginia, then
standing shoulder to shoulder, where they had stood throughout the Revolution.
The clause was formally introduced into the Congress by Mr. GRAYSON, of
Virginia, and seconded by Mr. KING, of Massachusetts. Listen to its words,
so broadly national, so purely American:
"The navigable waters leading into the Mississippi and St. Lawrence, and
the carrying places between the same, shall be common property, and FOREVER
FREE, as well to the inhabitants of the said country, as to the citizens of the
United States, and those of any other States that may be admitted into the
Confederacy-WITHOUT ANY TAX, DUTY OR IMPOST THEREFOR."




The clause was immediately incorporated into the ordinance, and passed
by the Congress on the 13th day of July, 1787.
Here, then, we behold the Magna Charta of the internal navigation of America. It throws its protecting mantle not only over the magnificent area
drained by the Mississippi and all its tributaries, but covers with its ample
folds the whole basin of the St. Lawrence, with its chain of inland seas; and,
as if prophetic of the labors of posterity, it smooths the way, by securing perpetual freedom even to the land portages, or carrying places, between those
two great systems of waters. The precursor of the Constitution, it was built
on a basis too broad to be displaced, even by that majestic structure. It was
never superseded, modified, or weakened, but it was taken bodily into the very
frame-work of the Constitution, which came into being, expressly subject to
its immutable obligation. The whole power of the Union is incompetent to
abate one jot or tittle of this fundamental compact, pre-existing at its birth,
and destined to endure forever.
The Articles of Confederation had no regard whatever to commerce. On
the contrary, they distinctly prohibited the Confederation from interfering in
any way, even by treaties with foreign nations, with the power of the separate States to levy separate duties at their sole discretion. The only semblance of commercial power conferred by the Articles, is a permission to regulate trade with the Indians-and not even with them, should they reside within
the limits of a State. In that disjointed and semi-barbarous state, the Confct
deration came out of the Revolution.
The melancholy condition of the nominally confederated, but really disunited States, during the four years succeeding the peace of 1783. is too
well known. It is truly the most discreditable, if not the most painful period
of our history. Amid all its demoralizations and abuses, nothing was more
conspicuous than the commercial rivalries and disturbances, of which our navigable waters became the theatre. Commerce and navigation having no common head, and the States no longer threatened by a common enemy, they
were fast lapsing into the worst condition of the petty Republics of the middle ages; and those who had studied the politics only of disunited Europe,
confidently predicted wasting civil war, which would eventually compel the
exhausted parties to return to the common protection of the British monarch.
The Chesapeake, divided between Maryland and Virginia, each claiming to
levy separate duties on its commerce, became the scene of constant disorder
while New York and New Jersey disputed for the Hudson. In the vivid language of the day, as quoted by Mr. MADISON, "New Jersey, placed between
Philadelphia and New York, was a cask, tapped at both ends; and North Carolina, between Virginia and South Carolina, a patient bleeding at both arms."
The Chesapeake, however, has the honor of being the first to bring the
disputants to their senses. The feeble Confederation being wholly helpless




and unable to provide a remedy, a Convention, called by several of the separate
States, to consider the disorders prevailing on the Chesapeake, assembled at
Annapolis. It is enough to say that ALEXANDER HAMILTON, of New York,
was there, and saw the full value of the occasion-that his clear intellect and
transcendant genius, at once acute and comprehensive, discerned in our navigable waters the key to a political union of the discordant States.
With consummate sagacity he built upon this foundation, and in the second convention which assembled soon afterwards, with enlarged powers, at
Philadelphia, he introduced into the Constitution the great commercial clause,
which makes it imperishable. Far be it from me to undervalue the other
splendid manifestations of creative power, exhibited in that matchless instrument —its novel and felicitous intermixture of the Federal with the National
element-the perfection and harmony of its component parts-its massive
strength, yet faultless symmetry-and above all, its freedom from geographical trammels, permitting the indefinite expansion, yet perfect security of the
Great Nation it called into being; bLL  all these excellences would have been
unavailing but for the one all-controlling, all-pervading power over commerce,
which united and nationalized our vast navigable waters, and made them one
and indivisible forever.
On the 4th day of March, 1789, the Old Thirteen States ceased to be confederated and became united. The first sentence of the Constitution announced to mankind, that the people of these Thirteen States had entered into
a more perfect Union. The 4th of July, 1776, had proclaimed the independence of thirteen separate States; but the 4th of March, 1789, was the birth
day of the Nation-for then it first came into the world with a nation's form
and features, and all the proper functions of a nation.
The Confederation was an old idea, borrowed from Europe, but the Union
was purely American.
The great novelty of the American Constitution consists in the skillful
distribution of the necessary powers of government between the Nation and
the States which compose it. Appropriating no power rightfully belonging to
the separate States and necessary for the regulation of their local affairs and
peculiar institutions, it confers upon the Nation only those great attributes of
sovereignty, needed for the due enjoyment and proper preservation of its own
exitence-. And thus we have a limited, national government, the first the
worla ever saw-limited, not in its powers-as is sometimes inaccurately
stated-but in the number and nature of its powers. In the exercise of the
several powers which are expressly granted and enumerated, it cannot be
limited. It must be supreme. For who would call the power " to raise and
support armies," or " to provide and maintain a navy," a limitedpower?
And so of the power in question, " to regulate commerce "-is any limit
imposed on the power to regulate? Can,any authority other than that of the




9
Union regulate commerce with foreign nations oramong the States? Is not
the power to "regulate " exclusive, by the mere force of the term itself? How
is it possible for more than one authority to regulate the same thing, at the
same time?
The only sensible inquiry must be, what is a regulation of commerce, and
what does it embrace t
And here we need not waste time upon verbal subtleties or metaphysical
abstractions. We leave hair-splitting to those happy regions where the faculty
for that pursuit is more fully developed. But we do ask, and insist that a
little common sense shall be employed in constructing the National Constitution. We look up to it as a great and beneficent instrument —almost a gift of
God himself; and we claim in its behalf, that it shall be fairly and honestly
interpreted, in its true substance and plain intent.
If we distinctly understand the position taken by those who deny the power
of the National Government to regulate commerce, by improving rivers, or
constructing harbors or other works necessary for its security, it is this: That
the power to "regulate commerce" denotes only the power to regulate the
rates of impost and duty to be laid upon it, and of restraining any separate
State from laying any such duty or impost; in a word, that regulation means
something abstract and invisible, and does not embrace anything physical or
visible.
Now, in answer to this, we would urge that the word " regulate " is of all
others, the one conveying the broadest possible signification, covering every
imaginable mode of action, visible or invisible. For that very reason it was
selected by those who framed the Constitution. The great architects who
reared that structure were no ordinary workmen. They well knew the size
and the strength of the words they were using. They laid their work in huge
blocks, that it might last forever.
If we examine the Constitution, we find that a prior section had already
given to Congress the power of laying duties and imposts, and that another
section expressly prohibited the separate States from doing so. No imaginable reason could exist for introducing a fresh clause again conferring the
same power, and enforcing the same prohibition, and that, too, by a mere implication. The style of the Constitution is quite too faultless, to leave it possible that its authors could introduce any such superfluity or surplusage.
But leaving this examination of the mere words-the hollow shell of the
Constitution —we shall contend, that neither its framers nor the American people could ever have intended to leave the Government without the power to
regulate commerce, and that, too, by physical and visible means; that it was
indispensably necessary for the Government thus to exercise it; that the Government, in fact, has constantly done so from its organization to the present
moment; and that this long, uninterrupted, and all but unquestioned usage, has




10
now settled and firmly established the constitutional doctrine, that the power
to regulate commerce includes the power to do so practically, by affording
such physical facilities as are needful for its existence, safety and convenience.
For let us look back, and see what commerce did in fact require, and what
the Government has done.
GEORGE VWVASHINGTON took the oath of office, as the first President of the
United States, in the City of New-York, the 4th of March, 1789. It is true that
he had been a "military chieftain," but he certainly would be the last to assume unlawful power.
Now, it so happens that almost the first, if not the very first, of his official
acts, was to regulate commerce, and that, too, in the very mode for which we
contend.
A light-house was then standing on Sandy Hook, almost within his very
sight. It had been erected in 1762, by Royal or Colonial authority. Four or
five other lights had also been placed at distant points, on the rocky coast of
New England. Upon the long, sandy shore, stretching for nearly seven hundred miles, from New-York to Charleston, but one solitary light was burning.
The ricketv old Confederation found no Federal authority for upholding
structures of that description, and the continent virtually lay buried in darkness.
A letter is now in existence in the proper hand-writing of GEORGE WASHINGTON, written soon after he took the oath of office, directing the keeper of Sandy
Hook Light to keep it burning, until Congress should take it especially under
their charge.
The first Congress, embracing among their number the very fathers of the
Republic, hastened to exercise their constitutional duty. The law of April
7, 1789, being their ninth act, promptly and comprehensively provided. "that
all expenses incurred before its passage, for the necessary support, maintenance,
and repairs of all light-houses, beacons, buoys, and for the piers erected, placed,
or sunk, at the entrance of, or within any bay, inlet, harbor or port of the United
States, for rendering the navigation thereof easy and safe, shall be defrayed out
of the Treasury of the United States."
Regarding the Chesapeake Bay, as a portion of the waters of the United
States, it then directs a light-house to be erected near its entrance; and thus,
the ancient soil of Virginia saw the first national work for the regulation of
commerce, erected by the government of this Union. I am painfully aware,
that the rapid extension of these structures, has seriously disturbed the abstract meditations of some of the political philosophers of that venerable
commonwealth; but nevertheless, lights and light-houses have made their
way, until the whole Atlantic coast is illuminated from the St. Croix to the Rio
Grande. In all the political mutations we have undergone during the last
sixty years, no party has been found strong enough, or barbarous enough, to




prevent the Government from  erecting and upholding these structures. But
where in all that long period, did it find the constitutional authority, if not in the
power to regulate commerce?
In truth, the existence of such a power is irresistibly deducible, from the
absolute and evident necessity for its exercise. The Constitution denied it to
the States. Could it intend to leave the Government without the power?
Could a Christian community exist and stand erect, in the family of civilized
nations, and shroud its shores in utter darkness   For what do we see when
we, look around us? The British Islands blazing with upwards of three
hundred lights-France with more than one hundred and fifty —the Baltic, the
Mediterranean, the Euxine, all illuminated; and even in the frozen North,
Imperial Russia lighting the American mariner on his pathway through the
White Sea, out to the Polar Basin. The whole globe from  North to South,
from East to West, is encircled with these living monuments of humanity and
civilization. And could America, young and vigorous America, refuse to lend
its hand to such a work?
In 1801, THOMAS JEFFERSON became the President of the United States.
If any one expects from me any disrespect to the memory of that distinguished
man, he will be disappointed. I am aware, that among the numerous and
often fugitive writings, coming from his prolific pen, at different periods of his
life, passages may possibly be found, which would narrow the powers, not
only of the government of the Union, but of all other governments of every
description.  It may even be true, that some of his political suggestions
would not wholly suit a country so progressive. as ours. They certainly
would not harmonize with some of the greatest acts of his own administration. For who will deny, that the acquisition of Louisiana was greatest of
them all? —and yet this signal act of statesmanship, was only the exercise by
Mr. JEFFERSON, of the constitutional power to facilitate and protect, and in
that way to regulate the commerce of the Union.
Louisiana, originally colonized by France, had been temporally transferred to Spain. Experience has sufficiently taught the two Americas the
effects of Spanish dominion upon human progress. The Plata, the Amazon,
the Oronoco, have fully told the story in one of the Continents, and the Mississippi might have told it in the other.
Suffice it to say, that about the time Mr. JEFFERSON'S accession to office,
the American people, then just beginning to descend the western slope of
the Alleghanies, found their access to the Gulf of Mexico through the Mississippi, obstructed not only by snags and sandbars, as at present, but by an
impediment still worse-a Spanish governor at its mouth, occupying the port
of New Orleans.
Steam had not then entered the world to subdue its waters, and not a
vessel was seen throughout the whole length of the Mississippi, but Indian




12
canoes and occasionally a barge or Mackinaw boat laden with furs, and drifting down the current.
But even this infant commerce Mr. JEFFERSON deemed it his duty to regulate, protect, and facilitate, and that too with no feeble hand. Earnest efforts
were made, not for the purpose of removing the physical impediments in the
stream, for in the then existing state of the navigation they were less important, but to buy from Spain the port of New Orleans outright. But
entreaties and even threats were unavailing, and we should certainly have
gone to war, for the sole purpose of obtaining the necessary facilities which
our inland trade required, but for the fortunate retrocession of the colony to
France. To the Government of that country, at that time controlled by
NAPOLEON, Mr. JEFFERSON immediately sent out special ministers instructed
to purchase New Orleans-surely not for the purpose of adding to our territory, for every one thought we had enough-but solely to secure this indispensable appendage to our inland commerce. Now, was not this something physical and visible?-something beyond the abstract, invisible, and
merely legal power to regulate commerce by adjusting the rates of duties and
imposts?
Mr. JEFFERSON did not at first succeed. NAPOLEON refused to sell New
Orleans, unless the whole of Louisiana from the Mississippi to the Pacific
were purchased with it. "The whole or none," were his terms. Our ministers sent home for fresh authority, which Mr. JEFFERSON promptly gave, and
the whole was purchased for sixteen millions of dollars. Looking at it now,
it was not dear, and would not have been at twenty times the cost. But
where was there a word in the Constitution, giving a semblance of authority to
buy it, save in the vast and beneficent power to regulate commerce with
foreign nations and among the several States?
The annexation of this vast domain to the pre-existing territory of the
United States, vitally altered, not only the relations of the States, one to the
other, but also the relative position of the nation to the great powers of the
world. The change, not then so apparent, is now obvious to us all. The
United States of America then became Continental America, not only in name
but in fact. She stood before the world one of its imperial powers, uniting
for all the purposes of national sovereignty, the continent between the Atlantic and the Pacific.
Now let us look at our system of navigable waters, as modified by this
cardinal fact in our civil history-the doubling of our territorial extent-and
I do not ask you to do this for any idle purpose of historical inquiry, but for
the sake of stating a fundamental proposition which directly concerns the matter in hand, and which I shall seek to prove, which is, that by that great event,
the constitutional responsibilities of the National Government, in respect to
the regulation of commerce on its navigable water., were almost immeasurably
increas( d.




13
It is not that the political supremacy of the States on the Atlantic was
then extinguished,-for thanks to our glorious Constitution, it has taught us
to know no East, no West,-but it is, that the immense commerce called into
being, by the concentration then effected of all the waters of the Mississippi
under one common authority, renders that of the Atlantic comparatively insignificant.
The commercial movement on the Atlantic we all know, for figures meas.
ure it, but who will count the movement of the Mississippi, when its valley
shall be fully peopled? Can the broken, discordant fragments of disunited
Europe furnish us the rule? Why, the Mississippi valley, if laid down upon
the map of Europe, would all but cover every kingdom, principality and power
it contains, "patches" and all, from Cadiz to the Russian frontier! We may
know the aggregate length of the river and its navigable tributaries, for our
engineers tell us it is sixteen thousand seven hundred miles,-a line long
enough to encircle Europe, and leave a remnant which lvould span the Atlantic;
but who will measure the gigantic mass of the products, which sixteen
thousand seven hundred miles of navigable water, spread out in one unbroken
net-work, will receive from populations united by millions and tens of millions,
and concentrating all their commerce in a single channel?
My friends, the interior was becoming too large. Space was becoming
inconvenient, if not dangerous; and it was time for ROBERT FULTON to come
into the world and build a steamboat; and so he did, in 1807, four years after
Mr. JEFFERSON bought Louisiana. I cannot butthink God holds worldly wealth
in light account, for those great men both died poor —but a nation's gratitude
will make their memories rich forever.
The Hudson was the scene of MR. FULTON'S first success; but he always
said the Mississippi would behold his final triumph. His ardent aspirations
were quenched by his early and lamented death; but the great river will bear
witness forever to his genius.
The current of that stream swollen by its tributaries, which come rolling
down from the broad declivities of the Alleghany and Rocky Mountains, was so
strong as nearly to destroy its value for the purposes of commerce. Its
ascent, from New-Orleans to the territory north of the Ohio, unaided by steam,
often required from two to three months. MR. FULTON'S invention reduced
it to four days.
It was that great victory over Nature, virtually annihilating time and
space, and equalizing the condition of the population of that wide-spread valley, which has imparted to the Mississippi its highest attribute-its power to
bind the vast communities on its banks in perpetual, political union.
The great object of the Constitution was, to nationalize the commerce and
navigable waters of the United States, by uniting them all under a common
authority, to be uniformly exercised, and it therefore expressly prohibited the




14
separate States from interfering in any way with that authority. To any who
may contend, that the States possess a concurrent authority which they may
lawfully exercise, until it shall be superseded by the paramount power of the
Union, we will merely answer that the authority of the Union, at any rate,
becomes supreme when exercised.
The waters of New-York have furnished a signal evidence of this. The
State Legislature, to reward MR. FULTON'S services, attempted to grant to
him, for a term of years, the exclusive right of navigating the Hudson by
steam. Connecticut and New Jersey immediately resisted.  They passed
laws of a hostile and even belligerent character, and the scenes of the Confederation and the Chesapeake seemed about to be repeated. A steamboat
from New Jersey, bearing the significant name of the " Bellona," attempting
to enter the limits of New York, was restrained by State authority; but its
owner, as was well said on a similar occasion, " went not to war, but to law."
The case was of transce'hdant importance, directly involving the supremacy of
the Union over its navigable waters, and never did this country behold a
greater display of intellectual vigor and forensic eloquence, than the four
great combatants exhibited who were selected to vindicate, on that occasion,
the right of the respective Governments, before the Supreme Court of the
United States, with Chief Justice MARSHALL at its head.
The written opinion of that great jurist, in deciding this question, is a
masterpiece of constitutional logic. It scattered to the winds every pretence
of State authority, to interfere with the navigable waters of the Union, and
established the national supremacy on a basis which nothing can shake.
And what course did New York pursue, on receiving this decision? Did
she attempt to nullify-to secede-to assume the air and port of an offended
Nation? Did she attempt to seize the Hudson, and go off with it out of the
Union? No, my friends, she obeyed the law and the Constitution, and stands,
where I trust she will always stand, a lofty example of national loyalty and
dignified obedience.
And now we enter upon a curious portion of the history of our navigable
waters. A mischievous political sect has arisen, in our American world, which
holds as a cardinal point of party faith, that the navigable waters of the
Union are those only, in which the tides of the ocean ebb and flow.
This narrow notion originated in the common law of England, an island
in which rivers, in our American sense, are not only unknown, but impossible.
England, lying in a high northern latitude, its shores are washed by an ocean
tide, which rises from twenty to thirty feet, and rushes into the numerous
bays, which deeply indent the coast. Little streams there called "rivers,"
empty into these bays, but above the high-water mark imprinted by the tide,
they have no navigation worthy of notice.
But how do streams like these compare with the Mississippi? More




15
than a thousand miles above the mouth of that river, its waters can float
a vessel of a thousand tons throughout the year. Above that point, it receives the Missouri, a stream so graphically described by WEBsTER, —not less
poet than statesman, —as " coming down two thousand miles from among
the savages, to imprint its barbarian character on the Mississippi!"  Their
accumulated waters frequently rise fifty feet above the summer level, and hurry
downward to the Gulf; where they meet a languid ocean tide of eighteen
inches!  The average volume of water, throughout the year, at the river's
mouth, exceeds in cubic contents, nearly three-fold that of the cataract of
Niagara, and often pushes out the ocean tide for many miles. Now is it
reasonable, that these English tide.water notions of navigable rivers shall be
applied on this side of the Atlantic? Shall the little rivulets of England
give law to a Continental river like oursl And nevertheless petty politicians, small men with smaller ideas, do take their law from  England, and
for years have contended, and some even yet contend, that in the eye of the
American Constitution, the Mississippi, above the ocean high-tide water mark
-if any such mark there be,-is not a navigable river, nor subject, as such,
to the national authority.
Now, was not this enough to make a whole people go to war? But
they did not, and again they went to law. Once more the authority of the Supreme Judicial tribunal of the Union was invoked-and during the year 1851,
and not until then, was it finally established that the narrow rules, drawn
from the English rivers, were not applicable to our navigable streams. Cobwebs and abstractions were swept away, and navigable waters were decided
by Chief Justice TANEY, to be waters that could be navigated. One Judge
only dissented, and he came from Virginia-of course.
The tide-water question being thus disposed of, let us ask, do the navigable waters of our great rivers and lakes, in fact, constitute channels of
"commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States?"
Now, as to foreign commerce, it is very difficult to say, not where it
begins, but where it stops. Cargoes may be shipped from Nova Scotia directly to Chicago or from Vera Cruz directly to Pittsburg.  In such case,
they pass through several States, on their way to the point of destination.Surely such cargoes are sufficiently foreign to be furnished with harbors, or
protected from  snags on their way;'and even if the steamboat bound for
Pittsburg should be stopped by its owner on its way up the Ohio, and sent
into the Wabash, the character of the commerce would remain unaltered.Or, to take a case nearer home; vessels from Nova Scotia may constantly be
seen ascending the Hudson, as far as Albany, and above the " Overslaugh,"
upon which so much constitutional argument has been expended.
But even if difficulties could be found, in determining the precise point in
the interior, where " ccmmerce with foreign nations" ceases to retain that




16
character, there surely can be none in ascertaining the meaning of the term
", commerce among the States."
For here again the Mississippi is at hand. The products of no less than
sixteen States which now lie in its valley, are daily intermingled on its
waters. If this is not commerce " among " the States, we may well despair
of finding an instance. For let us look a little more minutely into the
interior, and see what the people are about. Not to mention their vast interchanges,-iron sent from Tennessee two thousand miles to Pittsburg, and
returned, manufactured, two thousand miles more,-or pine timber from
South-western New York, finding its way to the Upper Mississippi, —is there
a nook or corner in the whole valley so remote, that merchandise does not
reach it from this our own city? Has it a navigable stream so small, that it
is not at this moment bearing on its waters, the fabrics of the very manufacturers and mechanics I see about me? And cannot we all see, and feel
how vital is our interest in the proper regulation and safety of such a commerce? Why, it is the very life blood of the system, flowing through every
artery and vein, and invigorating the body politic to its remotest extremities.
Nor is the interest of such a question confined to our commercial cities.
Where in all the wide-spread West, is there a hamlet so small, that it does
not consume the cotton, the sugar, and the tobacco of the South-the sunny
South-stretching away from the Chesapeake, around Cape Florida to the
Rio Grande?-or the thousand and one manufactures of New-England? Do
not wooden clocks from good old Connecticut, try the temper of the woodsmen of Minnesota?  Why, the very oysters, now eaten at the falls of St.
Anthony, are first carried from their ocean bed in New-Jersey, through the
long concatenation of rivers, and railroads, and canals, and lakes, and railroads
again, which stretch more than a thousand miles from the Atlantic to the
Mississippi; seasoned, too, with salt, river-borne from the interior of Virginia,
and pepper, ocean-borne from the farthermost islands of Asia. And can we
not, from these homely examples, perceive the universality of our inland
commerce?
The statistical tables are beginning to furnish some little idea of its
pecuniary value. The admirable report to the Senate of the United States
by Colonel ABERT, Chief of the Topographical Engineers, made after very
close and accurate investigation, estimates the annual trade of the Mississippi,
for the year 1850, at two hundred and seventy-four millions of dollars, and
for the year 1860, at four hundred and ninety-four millions. But what may
we not expect, before the present generation shall pass away?  Why, there
are men now before me, who will see the annual movement on the Mississippi and its tributaries numbered, not by hundreds of millions, as at present,
but by thousands of millions. And is not this "commerce among the
States?"  [s not a commercial movement like this,-a labor-saving machine




17
working on a scale so vast-a God-given stream, thus developing, at every
moment, elements of national strength and prosperity so gigantic, as well
worthy the attention of our Government, as the barren and worthless abstractions, by which political fanatics seek to paralyze its powers?
The annual losses of boats and their cargoes, on the waters of the Mississippi, by "snags," sandbars, and similar obstructions, was estimated in the
year 1846, by a Committee of the Senate of the United States, upon authentic data, to have been $2,601,200, and have doubtless kept pace since that
time with the increase of the river commerce. We insist that the government of the Union is bound to exert every legitimate power it possesses, to
prevent losses like these.
At the time of forming the Constitution, the common right of all the
citizens of all the States to navigate the Mississippi and the Great Lakes was
emphatically denominated a "RIGHT OF THE UNION," as contradistinguished
from the right of any separate State. We claim that a RIGHT so sacred and
fundamental, was accompanied by a DUTY equally sacred and fundamental.
The States surrendered to the Union all revenue derived fiom commerce, and
thus parted with the very means of facilitating the business, which produced
that revenue. They parted too with the control of all the navigable waters,
which furnished the channels for that commerce. The doctrine on this subject has been so clearly stated by an eminent fellow-laborer in our cause,*
that I beg to quote his words: "The States," said he, "could never have
intended to deliver themselves up to the care of the Federal Government,
stripped of the means of securing the first elements of their prosperity, and
thus manacled and fettered, without an equivalent. And what was that
equivalent? The only one which the case admitted-the substitution of the
Federal Government for the exercise of the powers, and the performance of
those correlative duties, which the exigencies of the confederacy forbade to
the States. In the very nature of things, the Federal Government took the
place and received the powers, and thereby assumed those duties of the
States respectively, which they could not separately exercise, consistent with
the peace and prosperity of the whole. This was the great compromise of
the Constitutiorn."
The neglect of the Government to discharge the duty so plainly devolving
upon it, is the mnore inexcusable, when we reflect how well it can afford to
take care of the navigable waters committed to its charge. It took these great
channels of intercourse, expressly subject to the burthens which Nature had
imposed upon them-burthens bearing no sort of proportion to the benefits
received. The whole sum hitherto expended on the Mississippi, and all its great
tributaries-the Missouri, the Arkansas, the Red, the Cumberland, and the
* John C. Spencer.
2




18
Ohio Rivers-is less than three millions of dollars; and shall we begrudge
that sum for a commerce counted by hundreds of millions?
It is the very magnitude of those streams which produces effects,
which call for corresponding energy to counteract. It is their office to carry
off the wash of more than halfa continent-in doing which they sweep along not
only the sands of the wide-spread plains, but immense masses of trees, which
they uproot in their turbulent career, and strew along their way. Their
channels, of course, become endangered, or, in the case of the " raft " of the
Red River, obstructed altogether.
Now, we admit it to be no child's play to "curb the licentiousness of
nature "' when operating on a scale like this; but we claim that a Nation has
been raised up by Providence strong enough to do it. The great NAPOLEON
was once master of the largest portion of the valley drained by the Mississippi. Think you, if he had retained his portion he would not have swept
from the channel every obstacle to its perfect navigation?  How long would
he have permitted sand bars and snags to disgrace the imperial river?
My friends, it is unbecoming the dignity of the American people, to permit
this great national nuisance to continue. No other civilized nation, ancient or
modern, known to mankind, has thus disgraced itself. Why, if we look back
two thousand years ago, we find that the very first efforts of the great
ALEXANDER Of Macedon, in pouring Greek civilization into the valley of the
Euphrates, were directed to the care and improvement of its navigation. - Russia
in these modern days most sedulously guards its rivers, and removes every
obstruction from their icy currents. Several European monarchs unite, to
keep the Rhine in navigable condition. AUGUSTU,s, the master of the Roman
world, deemed it his highest office to restrain the inundations of the Tiber.
Controlled by his vigorous arm, that angry stream,
"Doctus iter melius,"
was taught to mend its ways. And cannot the whole American Union teach
better manners to the Mississippi, and even to the "barbarian" Missouri?
Republicans of America, Sovereigns of the New World-let us stand up to our
work, and not allow empires or monarchies, old or young, to outdo us!
And now we must enter upon an inquiry of some perplexity, for we must
discover, if possible, by what strange infatuation, the Government of the
Union could have been induced to abandon or neglect a duty so honorable, so
important, and so imperative,-and we must wander far away from our broad
lands and waters, into the dreary regions and among the dreamy shadows of
political abstraction.
These singular creations of the human brain would seem at first to be
harmless-airy nothings-hardly deserving a local habitation or a name. And
yet we shall find that, shadows as they are, they have for many years exerted,




19
and still exert, a baneful interest over all the substantial interests of the
American people, and in the hands of political jugglers have frightened the
Government from its propriety, and almost stolen away the senses of the
nation.
Before attempting to describe them, let us remark, for the fact is important, that none of them ever disturbed the administration of President
JEFFERSON. So far from that, he fully carried out the practical policy which
President WASHINGTON had commenced, of regulating commerce by lighthouses and other facilities required for its safety and convenience-and
superadded to that policy, as we have seen, the purchase of the port of New
Orleans, and the territory of Louisiana.
Nor did Mr. JEFFERSON withhold similar facilities on the land, for in 1806
he commenced the Cumberland Road, to stretch from the Potomac through
the territory of six of the States to the Mississippi-a work which, we may
add, was continued under every succeeding administration until 1838, when,
after an expenditure of nearly six millions, it came to its end under the Government of Mr. VAN BUREN.
In addition to these facilities within the jurisdictional limits of the United
States, Mr. JEFFERSON commenced the survey of the Coast, which is even yet
in progress: and that, too, for the express purpose, as avowed by the act of
1807, of making discoveries which might "be specially subservient to the
commercial interests of the United States!" That act requires the survey to
include not only " all the islands and shoals within twenty leagues of the
shores of the United States," but also the soundings and currents out to the
Gulf Stream —the great Ocean River, distant more than five hundred miles
from the Coast.
Let no one, therefore, do Mr. JEFFERSON the injustice to believe, that he
ever for a moment hesitated to exercise the power to regulate commerce, by
affording it all needful physical facilities. It seems, however, that a discovery
has been made by some of his pretended followers-who claim, par excellence, to
be his most faithful disciples-that in after life, he expressed opinions at variance with these public official acts. To prove this, they produce extracts
from his writings, purporting to contain certain phrases, which they now proclaim aloud, as the fundamental dogma of Jeffersonian Democracy. They are
as follows:
"The world is governed too much. Government must protect every man
in his life, liberty, and property, and there stop."
Now, whether Mr. JEFFERSON ever used these words in their unrestricted
sense, or whether he explained or modified them by other expressions, we
know not; but if he did so use them, we can only claim to gather his opinions
from his acts and not his language.
The time would not suffice to point out a tithe of the mischiefs such a doc.




20
trine would inflict upon all the most valuable institutions of human societyits public schools-its public charities-its great institutions of learning-its
public works of every description, in fact everything dear to civilization and
humanity.
We have, however, seen but too plainly here in the North, the effects of
this doctrine, in the hands of office-seeking demagogues, who parade it as the
test of party faith. In New Hampshire in particular-it arrested or greatly
retarded for several years, the progress of all public improvement-forbidding
even the incorporation of companies with adequate powers. In our own New
York, political leaders found in it the key to political power, which enabled
them with ruthless hand, not only to arrest the enlargement of our great artificial channel of commerce-the pride and glory of the State-but to bind
down the people by a Constitution which, if left unaltered, will postpone the
work for a whole generation. Nay, more-it has enabled those leaders, aided
by kindred spirits in the States around the lakes, to propagate similar constitutions through all that region, virtually disabling their State authorities from
expending a dollar on public works. And then, after doing all this and after
denying the power of the Nation to build harbors for the protection of commerce, they call in cruel mockery, upon the very States they have thus manacled, to construct the works!
And what do we see? The State of Michigan, permitted by the Government to take exclusive possession of the outlet of Lake Superior, and improve
the Sault St. Marie, but weighed down by these chains, unable to stir an inch!
But if such a dogma has been mischievous in the separate States, how
much more disastrous would be its effects, if applied to the Union! If indeed
it be true that Government, after protecting every man in his life, liberty, and
property, must there stop, why should we regulate commerce at all-still less
by physical means?
But leaving this, the broadest of all political abstractions, we come down to
a class, which merely denies to the National Government all practical power
over the regulation of commerce.
And here we encounter one general abstraction, which seems to cover all
this particular class. It is that the Government of the United States is not
a Union, but only a Confederacy; in a word, that we are not a Nation, but
merely a League of States absolutely sovereign; that the nation acts only on
a grander scale, as common attorney for those sovereign States-each of
which may judge of the extent of the powers granted-that the powers thus
temporarily delegated to this " Confederacy " are strictly limited, and must be
strictly construed; that the tribunals expressly provided by the Constitution
have no authority to decide upon the extent of such limitation, but that the
President, especially if elected by politicians holding these doctrines, has full
power to narrow the exercise of the powers by Congress, to suit his own peculiar tenets.




21
And such has been the actual result.: The American people by some
magic have been induced to elect a succession of Presidents wedded to this
particular political faith, and our great navigable waters have severely felt the
results.
It is therefore necessary for us, if possible, to understand the nature of
this particular class of abstractions. We shall find them somewhat difficult
to define or comprehend, for they have every possible variety of form, color
and extent. We may, however, succeed in stating some of them, and especially those which have done most harm to the country. They seem to be
these:
1. That the power to regulate commerce, is merely the abstract power to
regulate the duties to be imposed upon it-and to prohibit the States from imposing such duties.
2. That if the power exists at all to afford any physical facilities, it is limited to hiah-tide water mark.
3. That rivers cannot be improved above the " ports of entry" established
by Congress.
4. That a river cannot be improved, if lying wholly within a State.
5. That it is not enough for a river to separate two States, but it must
adjoin or pass through three at least.
6. That harbors constructed by the Government, must be harbors for shelter and not for commerce.
7. That if it is lawful at all to deepen our navigable waters, it is not lawful to place in them piers or any similar structures, as that would encroach on
the territorial jurisdiction of a State and trespass on its "sovereignty."
8. That it is not lawful to remove obstructions in our navigable waters,
but that it is lawful to erect beacons on those obstructions.
The last of this brilliant list, came into the political world during the administration of President POLK. Congress had ordered a beacon to be placed
on a rock, in the harbor of New Haven. The engineer reported that the cost
of removing the rock, would be less than the cost of erecting the beacon. But
the President was firm. A great party doctrine was involved, and the rock
remains to uphold the beacon- a naked pole with an empty barrel at its head
-a suitable type of the whole class of constitutional abstractions.
It is important also to understand the historical progress of these abstractions, in enfeebling the authority of the nation. They did not make their appearance to any extreme extent, until near the close of the administration of
General JACKSON. On the contrary, during the eight years in which that eminent man controlled the affairs of the Government, its nationality was not materially impaired.
The sums expended during that time upon rivers and harbors, including




22
the Cumberland road, and some other roads of minor extent, was between ten
and eleven millions of dollars.
During his time, however, an opinion began to gain ground, that though it
might be constitutional, it was not expedient for the national Government to
construct turnpike roads within the limits of the States; but that works of
that description, might better be left to the States, or to individuals incorporated by their authority. Gen. JACKSON therefore vetoed a bill, for building a
turnpike from Maysville into the interior of Kentucky; He went a step
further, and vetoed a bill for the improvement of the Wabash river, which being above any " port of entry," it was in his judgment, a local work.
Mr. VAN BUREN, who succeeded him in 1837, followed his footsteps so far
only as to encourage the theories of the abstractionists; and the vagaries
in which they indulged as to the legitimate power of the Government, soon
gained a stronger foothold.
The improvements of rivers and harbors which had been commenced by
Gen. JACKSON, Mr. VAN BUREN after a short time allowed to languish, and
they finally came to an end, before the close of his Presidential term in 1841.
But a valuable discovery was then made in party politics, for it was then well
ascertained, that the true mode for Northern men to get the Southern
votes necessary for attaining or retaining the Presidential chair was, resolutely to uphold the abstractions we have been considering.
The political party of Mr. VAN BUREN controlled both branches of Congress, and they adjourned without making any appropriations for rivers and
harbors. But this was not quite enough. The South might fear that the
works would be resumed at a subsequent session, and it was therefore necessary to offer up before the whole nation, some open and notorious sacrifice,
which should stand as an unmistakeable pledge of political faith, and satisfy
the whole American people, that every thought or hope of improving our
navigable waters by national authority was permanently abandoned.
The Government of Mr. VAN BUREN accordingly issued orders, under
which all the boats, machinery, and other apparatus which had been purchased
at great expense for the construction of harbors on the Lakes, were publicly
sold at auction.
Mr. VAN BUREN was succeeded by JOHN TYLER, in whose time abstractionism took a more distinct and malignant type, accompanied however, by
some strange phenomena. A bill providing, among other things, for the improvement of certain harbors on the Atlantic, including the Delaware Break.
water, the improvement of the Hudson River near Albany, and the James
River at Richmond, was vetoed by President TYLER on the ground, that each
State possessed exclusive jurisdiction over all streams and water courses
within its territorial limits; —and nevertheless he signed at the same time, another bill for improving the Ohio river and numerous harbors on the Western




23
Lakes, lying within the mouths of rivers, and for all constitutional purposes
as much within the jurisdiction of the States, as the James river or the Hudson. The annual commerce, foreign and domestic, then existing on the Hudson river,.nd embarrassed by the obstructions which this vetoed bill might
have removed, exceeded one hundred and fifty millions of dollars. A very
remarkable reason was also given in the veto message, which added another
to the abstractions above enumerated, and it was that the improvement of the
James river at Richmond, by increasing the trade of that city, would corre.
spondingly lessen that of Petersburgh!.a principle which, if adopted, would
stop every species of improvement, and compel us to leave the world in a
state of nature.
In 1845, JAMES K. POLK succeeded Mr. TYLER. Coming from Tennessee, it was hoped that he would carry into the Government somewhat of the
nationality of General JACKSON. But Mr. POLK exceeded all his predecessors,
in the narrowness and severity of his theories. He not only vetoed the bills
for continuing the harbors which had been commenced by General JACKsoN,
but he flatly denied all authority whatever in the national Government to expend money for any such objects-denouncing the whole as utterly unconstitutional.
The reasons he gave would equally include light houses and beacons. To
be consistent, he should have vetoed them also, but they were allowed to
stand,-at least for a time.
Mr. POLK did what was much worse. tie brought forward a plan for the
vilrtual division and dismemberment of all the navigable waters of the Unionthe Mississippi, the Lakes, and all-and the abandonment of all authority to
regulate their improvement by the national Government. The plan was distinctly proposed in an elaborate message, which recommended that Congress
should at once give its consent in advance, that each State should levy tonnage
duties on all vessels entering the harbors within its limits-to be applied to
the improvement of the rivers and harbors within such limits, exclusively by
the State, and in such manner as its local authorities should see fit-thus reproducing, at a stroke, the evils of the old Confederation-shivering to atoms
the fabric which the Constitution intended to rear, and destroying those two
great cardinal and prominent features-the unity and the freedom of our navigable waters-which distinguish America from all the other nations of the
world.
On the 5th of July, 1847, a Convention of Delegates-to consider the
condition of our navigable waters-from  eighteen of the States, assembled
at Chicago-a large commercial city in the heart of the continent, near the
Southern extremity of Lake Michigan, and preeminently a fitting place for
such an assemblage. General CASS, in the speech to which I have alluded,
terms it, sneeringly, a " renowned Convocation." It was indeed renowned,




24
as well in numbers as in weight of character and patriotic devotion to the
country and its best interests, and, in all these respects, and above all, in
the decent decorum of its proceedings, will stand a comparison with any
public body ever assembled in America, not excepting Congress itself.
The interests of the country were greatly suffering. Our lakes and rivers
were strewed with wrecks, which the cruel neglect of the Government had
caused-and the sufferers spake out plainly. The place of meeting was
immediately opposite the great peninsula of Michigan-a State of large
and increasing commerce, and greatly needing safe and commodious harbors;
and a State moreover, which had carried forward General CAss to wealth and
greatness. He was respectfully invited to attend this Convention, but" circumstances" prevented him. What those circumstances were, were never
publicly known, until his recent speech in the Senate, which distinctly avows,
that he abstained from attending, because he " was satisfied that it was got
up for the purpose of injuring Mr. POLK, and through him the Democratic
party."
I have no wish to comment upon this avowal, further than to observe that
it establishes two important facts on the very best authority, the first of which
is, that " the Democratic party " are thus distinctly identified with Mr. POLK, as
enemies to the improvements in question; —and the second, that the power of
the American President has indeed become dangerous, when a Senator of the
United States, in a case where the interests of his State are vitally concerned,
does not dare openly to disagree with the Executive, or take any efficient
means to resist the abuse of his authority. It also shows the utter folly of
electing to that office either an abstractionist or an ally of abstractionists,
under the vain expectation that Congress will be able to restrain him from the
tyrannical exercise of the veto power, with which the Constitution has
clothed him. Experience has taught us too well, that in the power of the
American President to resist all measures for the improvement of navigable
waters, he is to all intents as much an autocrat as the Czar of Russia.  And
shall we, with our eyes open, enter upon another dynasty of misrule and
folly?
The Chicago Convention appointed a Committee of two from each of the
States represented in the Convention, to collect and embody information as
to the trade of the Western waters, and the necessity for its more efficient
protection, with a proper memorial, to be presented to Congress. The duty
of preparing that important paper, vindicating the constitutional authority of
the nation and the necessity for its exercise, was committed to JOHN C.
SPENCER, of New York; and it is enough to say that his great powers were
thrown wholly into the work. The masterly exposition which he then made,
not only of the right and duty of Congress to improve our Rivers and Harbors,
but of the utter fallacy, folly, and unconstitutionality of the proposed plan of




25
State tonnage duties, is one. of the most valuable State papers ever produced
in this country. Let our opponents answer it, if they can.
The scheme of State tonnage duties did not, after all, originate with Mr.
POLK. The true author was JOHN C. CALHOUN, of South Carolina, who
saw in it a plan peculiarly harmonizing with his views of State sovereignty,
and well calculated to enfeeble the national authority. Shortly after the
veto of Mr. POLK, Mr. RHETT, of S. C., introduced a bill into the House of Representatives, giving the consent of Congress to the local tonnage duties to
be levied by the States. It was referred to the Committee of Commerce, of
which WASHINGTON HUNT, the present Governor of the State of New York,
was Chairman. Earnest efforts were used by Mr. RHETT, to point out to
Governor HUNT, the peculiar advantages which New York would derive in
levying local duties, from her geographical position, in holding the very gates
of commerce, both on the Atlantic and the Lakes. But WASHINGTON HUNT
was a National Whig, and loyal to the Constitution. It was enough for him, as
it is for all good Whigs, that New York should be part of one great Republic.
He scorned to seek, and would not accept advantages for his State by a measure that would weaken the Union; but presented to the House a report corndemning the plan in the strongest terms. It took a broad and comprehensive
view of our commerce, foreign and domestic, and the just'right of every portion of the Union to be fairly protected, and placed on a proper national basis
the duty which the government had so long neglected. It also reprobated
the arbitrary veto, by which the President had defeated the Harbor Bill. The
report was accompanied by four separate resolutions, upon which a vote was
obtained in July, 1848, after a desperate resistance by the friends of the Executive.
The first resolution, asserting the power of the National Government to
improve Rivers and Harbors, was passed by a vote of 128 to 59.
The second, asserting the expediency of exercising that power, was passed
by a vote of 112 to 53.
The third, disapproving the veto of the President, was passed by 91 to 71.
And the fourth, condemning the proposed plan of State tonnage duties, was
passed by 109 to 59.
It not being practicable to obtain two-thirds of the House to pass the
Harbor Bill notwithstanding the veto, the bill failed, and our Lakes and Rivers
were left to their fate.
In November of that year, ZACHARY TAYLOR Was chosen President of the
United States, and it was really believed to be impossible that this important national interest could be longer neglected. But such was the violence of party, or
so great the fear of offending Southern abstractionists, that nearly four years
elapsed before the Whigs could succeed in passing a River and Harbor Bill.
Their opponents held majorities in both Houses, and steadily refused to pass




26
it, until late in the summer of the present year, when the near approach of
the Presidential election, and the apprehension of losing the votes of the
States interested in internal navigation, operated to convince a sufficient number of the expediency of voting for the bill. It is almost needless to say
that MILLARD FILLMORE, the Whig President, signed it without a moment's
hesitation.
It must be obvious that this.revival of the River and Harbor policy is only
temporary, and will again be abandoned unless the people can succeed at the
approaching election in placing a Whig in the Presidential chair. We have
seen the baleful effects, of placing in that position an abstractionist, or
Northern ally of abstractionists. What can we possibly expect if we elect
any but a Whig? It is already distinctly announced by the political press of
Virginia-which has the merit, at least, of openness and candor-that General
PIERCE, if elected, will abandon the policy just renewed. Now can we, will
we consent that the protecting arm of the Government shall again be paralyzed?
But this is not all —for there is a feature in the approaching contest, which
gives it a mnuch higher and more enduring interest. The success of our opponents will permanently fasten upon the nation a plan of local tonnage duties,
even more mischievous and destructive than that which Mr. POLK proposed.
During the recent struggle to pass the River and Harbor Bill through the
Senate, Mr. DOUGLAS of Illinois, offered as a substitute, an amendment, giving
the consent of Congress to the levy of local tonnage duties, not only by each
of the separate States, but even by the authorities " of any city or town," on
the whole extent of the coasts of the Atlantic, the Pacific, the Gulf of Mexico
and all the Lakes, and further allowing any of the States, either singly or by
compact among themselves, to levy similar duties on all the navigable rivers
of the Union, within their respective limits. The plan of President POLK divided the national waters of the Union, into only thirty-one separate portions
-while that of Senator DOUGLAS subdivides them into as many parts, as
there are towns on the whole ocean and lake coasts. Can it need any comment? Where could it find a parallel? In its utterly denationalizing effects,
its daily and hourly checks, delays, exactions, and imposition, it would exceed
even the subdivision of the waters of Europe, among the crowds of petty
States and feudal barons, after the dismemberment of the Roman Empire;
and America in the middle of the nineteenth century, would enjoy the singular privilege of inverting the whole course of modern civilization, and returning to the barbarism of the dark ages. Our coasts and rivers would be lined
with collectors, demanding tribute. Vessels from Pittsburg to New Orleans
would be stopped at least nine times on their voyage. Pretended improvements would be made or attempted wholly unsuited to their object, and other
improvements omitted that commerce demanded. Agricultural States would




27
hesitate or refuse to execute the works, which their imore commercial neighbors required. The younger or smaller States would shrink from the burthen,
while the States around the Lakes, manacled by their so-called " democratic"
Constitutions would be totally disabled. States making trifling improvements
would exact the same tribute, as those which were burthened with the most
costly. Nothing like uniformity of plan would be practicable, while the due
application of the duties would be a subject of interminable discussion and
strife. Truly was it said by the Chicago memorial, that " if the wit of man
were taxed to devise a scheme utterly destructive of all trade, commerce, and
navigation upon our waters, a better one for the purpose than this, of artificially obstructing them by hosts of collectors of tonnage duties imposed by
local legislation could not be framed."
But in addition to all this, the measure would be utterly unconstitutional, in
violating the fundamental provision of the great Ordinance of 1787, the obligation of which was assumed by the Constitution, and which declared the Mississippi, the St. Lawrence, and all their tributaries, to be " common highways,
and FOR EVER FREE,Without any tax, impost, or duty therefor." Nor would it stop
even here. It would come in direct conflict with the fundamental conditions
contained in the five several acts admitting into the Union the States of Louisiana, Arkansas, Missouri, Iowa, and Wisconsin, each of which came into the
Union under the express condition, that the Mississippi and its tributaries
should remain forever free, without any tax, duty, or impost to be levied by
said States.
It is true that the proposed amendment of Mr. DOUGLAS was not adopted.
The Presidential election was too near at hand-but he has given notice, th at
he will renew it at the next session of Congress. If any think it impossible
that such a measure can be adopted, let him remember that although its mischiefs and absurdities were pointed out in the strongest manner by Mr. TRuMAN SMITH, one of the Whig Senators from Connecticut —whose manly
and vigorous speech on that occasion, deserves the thanks of every: man engaged in inland commerce, -it nevertheless received the votes of seventeen Senators, among whom stands conspicuous Mr. WILLIAM R. KING, of Alabama,
now nominated by our opponents for Vice-President of the United States, and
presented to the people on the same ticket with GENERAL PIERCE. Can any
one doubt the political character of their administration should they be elected?  or the results which will follow to our navigable waters?
I have thus endeavored to bring down the history of this question to the
present point, in order to ascertain what is the present attitude of the two contending parties. Our opponents with characteristic adroitness, have labored
to blind the eyes of the country to the true issue. The resolution adopted
by the Whigs at the Presidential Convention, which nominated SCOTT and
GRAHAM, is open and explicit. It is this.




28
" The Constitution vests in Congress the power to open and repair harbors,
and remove obstacles from navigable rivers; and it is expedient that Congress
shall exercise that power whenever such improvements are necessary for the
common defence, or for the protection and facilities of commerce with foreign
nations, or among the States,-such improvements being, in every instance,
national and general in their character."
Now, how do our opponents meet this resolution? I do not ask how they
meet it by acts-for those we see-but how do they meet it by words? The
resolution passed by the Presidential Convention which nominated PIERCE and
KING, is in these words:
" The Constitution does not give the power to Congress to commence and
carry on a general system of internal improvements"
The crafty and evasive character of the resolution is obvious. Its true
object is to cajole the North, while it satisfies the South. On the one hand,
it induces the North to believe that the party do not object to works strictly
national, but only to roads, canals, and other similar works strictly local, and to
a " General System of Internal Improvement," only because it includes such local works-while, on the other hand, it satisfies the South that the phrase " internal improvements " includes all works of improvement, whether local or
national.
But the practical effect on river and harbor improvements is precisely the
same, as if the power to make these works was openly and distinctly denied
by our opponents. This skillfully-worded resolution was first introduced in
the Presidential Convention of 1840, which nominated Mr. VAN BUREN; and
his followers have carefully stereotyped and repeated it, at every Presidential
Convention from that time to the present. Under its equivocal phraseology,
Mr. POLK found himself sufficiently justified in his vetoes, and should General
PIERCE be elected, he will undoubtedly find it equally accommodating.
Now. we utterly deny that the Whig party contend for the doctrine that
Congress has power to carry on a " general system of internal improvement."
What they do contend for, is precisely this: That Congress has power to open
and repair harbors, and remove obstacles from navigable rivers.
In respect to a " system " we claim, that Congress may, or may not pursue
a systematic policy in respect to rivers and harbors, as they may in respect to
any other subject of legislation. Surely, works which are national and constitutional in themselves, do not cease to be so, merely because they may be constructed in a systematic manner, or on a systematic plan. The Chicago
memorial meets this whole matter in these few sentences:
"But we hear it soid that the Constitution does not confer on Congress




29
the power to regulate commerce, by commencing and carrying on a general
system of internal improvement; as if the objection was not to any particular
work, but to a general system. We confess our inability to perceive the force
of this distinction. If any particular work can be justified by the importance
of the commercial exigency which demands it, is not the power of Congress to
facilitate commerce by any other similar work admitted? And if any work, in
the judgment of Congress, possesses the requisites to bring it within the constitutional provision, does it cease to possess them because the commercial
facilities it affords, may be augmented by its connection with other kindred
works? Thus, the commercial cargoes, which now descend from Lake Michigan to the ocean, in their passage meet successively, the flats on Lake St.
Clair, in the harbor of Buffalo, and in the overslaugh of the Hudson. The
works needed to remove those three separate impediments, each highly necessary in itself, will be still more useful when all are completed, and when constructed, will naturally and necessarily group themselves together, and become
portions of a system. But does this afford any reason, why each particular
work should not be constructed? On the contrary, does it not greatly
strengthen the inducement for building them all, and that too on a harmonious
plan, so that each portion may add to the value of the whole?"
It is now more than twenty years since any one thought of a general
system of internal improvement to be prosecuted by the national government.
On the contrary, the separate States or corporations acting under their authority, have executed all works of internal improvement purely local. The
States are overspread with a network of railroads more than ten thousand
miles in extent, which have cost more than three hundred millions, not to
mention the local canals, which have cost nearly one hundred millions more.
All the States ask is, that the national Government may take care of the
national waters-that, while the States are doing so much for the Union, the
Union may do a little for itself. The total expenditure up to the present
moment, extending over a period of forty years, is only seventeen millions of
dollars; and yet attempts are made to alarm the country with the idea, that
ruinous sums will be required. The amount expended on the Mississippi,
the Ohio, and the Missouri, is less than three millions. The Cumberland
road cost about six millions, —leaving only eight millions, as the sum
total expended by the Government since its organization, upon other internal
improvements of every description. Of this eight millions, $5,700,000 were
expended upon harbors and breakwaters on the Atlantic and the Lakes, and
$1,300,000 in improving navigable rivers, such as the Hudson, the Cape Fear,
and the Savannah. Will any one pretend that the American Union cannot
afford to expend sums like these, upon objects like these?
Why, gentlemen, a private company, a mere handful of individuals, in our
city, have expended twenty-five millions in building the Erie Railroad, and




30
our State another twenty-five in building and in part enlarging the Erie
Canal,-while in Illinois, a State hardly thirty years old, another company is
expending twenty millions in a railroad, to connect Lake Michigan with the
mouth of the Ohio. It is possible, that in looking over the Union, we may
find two isolated cases of canals,-to wit, one at the Falls of the Ohio, and
the other at the Sault St. Marie, in which the general interest and the common
security may require the nation to execute and control the work. But with
those two exceptions, I know of no canal, or road, or local work, of any description, East of the Mississippi, which any Whig supposes should be constructed by the General Government. What then, do our opponents mean by
their phrase —"A general system of Internal Improvements," except to deceive
the people?
Stripped of all party disguise, the naked questions before the country are
these, and only these:Shall THE NATION improve the NATIONAL NAVIGABLE WATERS, or leave them
unimproved?
Will THE UNION preserve unimpaired the UNITY AND FREEDOM of its navigable waters, secured by the constitution, or will it surrender back those waters to the separate States, to be subjected to local authority and local im-.
positions?
It is indeed, matter of serious concern, that questions like these, so vitally
interwoven with our highest national interests, affecting so deeply, not only
our present prosperity, but the welfare of the boundless Future which Provi.
dence has spread before us, should depend upon the varying issues of our
party conflicts. But such, unhappily, is the fact; and we cannot, wisely or
safely, close our eyes upon the momentous responsibilities which it imposes.
One word, and but a word, in conclusion, as to party epithets. Our opponents arrogate to themselves the exclusive use of the term "democracy."
But it belongs much more tous than them. For what is democracy, but the
equalization of human condition? and where can the world furnish equalizing
agents more truly democratic, than cheap, rapid, and commodious channels of intercourse? They produce equality, not only among men of every rank and condition, but even among States and nations. The steam-engine on land and water,
carries rich and poor alike. Canals transport their property alike. Rivers and
harbors cleared from obstructions, and guarded from dangers, benefit all alike.
They do more. They equalize the conditions of great communities of men.
The great series of channels, natural and artificial, from the Atlantic to the Mississippi, not only place the County of Erie side by side with the County of
Albany, but the State of Iowa side by side with the State of New-York.
On the distant Pacific, this nation possesses an almost boundless store of
metallic wealth. Our young Democrats, full of energy and life, are striving to
reach it. If we had the power to construct a road, which would carry them




31
safely, cheaply and quickly, and give them equal access with their more favored
countrymen to the common treasure-would not such a work be equalizing
and democratic in its effects l And yet if we should dare to hint that Missouri
with BENTON at its head, should be aided by all constitutional means in executing a work so truly necessary to the nation-equalizing the condition of
the Continent, placing Pacific by the side of Atlantic America, and thus riveting
the great bond of our continental union-would not a whole army of Abstractionists be let loose at once?
My friends, let us not be misled by party names, nor discouraged by party
clamor-let us seek out our duty, and faithfully do it. Let us remember, that
our generation comes early in the nation's history. Its shadow, lengthened
by the morning light, will fall far beyond the scanty span of our narrow
existence. Events are crowding quickly on us. It is no time to enfeeble the
nation's powers. Seeing what is at stake, let us commit its guidance to men
like the wise and far-seeing patriots, who framing our noble constitution, could
discern the seeds of empire in the young republic-men possessing energy to
direct the present, and wisdom to discern the future.