the writings-2-第14章

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！



of　this　message。　　And　this；　with　the　exception　of　what　is　said

about　constitutionality；　applying　as　forcibly　to　what　is　said

about　making　improvements　by　State　authority　as　by　the　national

authority；　so　that　we　must　abandon　the　improvements　of　the

country　altogether；　by　any　and　every　authority；　or　we　must　resist

and　repudiate　the　doctrines　of　this　message。　　Let　us　attempt　the

latter。



The　first　position　is；　that　a　system　of　internal　improvements

would　overwhelm　the　treasury。　　That　in　such　a　system　there　is　a

tendency　to　undue　expansion；　is　not　to　be　denied。　　Such　tendency

is　founded　in　the　nature　of　the　subject。　　A　member　of　Congress

will　prefer　voting　for　a　bill　which　contains　an　appropriation　for

his　district；　to　voting　for　one　which　does　not；　and　when　a　bill

shall　be　expanded　till　every　district　shall　be　provided　for；　that

it　will　be　too　greatly　expanded　is　obvious。　　But　is　this　any　more

true　in　Congress　than　in　a　State　Legislature？　　If　a　member　of

Congress　must　have　an　appropriation　for　his　district；　so　a　member

of　a　Legislature　must　have　one　for　his　county。　　And　if　one　will

overwhelm　the　national　treasury；　so　the　other　will　overwhelm　the

State　treasury。　　Go　where　we　will；　the　difficulty　is　the　same。

Allow　it　to　drive　us　from　the　halls　of　Congress；　and　it　will；

just　as　easily；　drive　us　from　the　State　Legislatures。　　Let　us；

then；　grapple　with　it；　and　test　its　strength。　　Let　us；　judging　of

the　future　by　the　past；　ascertain　whether　there　may　not　be；　in

the　discretion　of　Congress；　a　sufficient　power　to　limit　and

restrain　this　expansive　tendency　within　reasonable　and　proper

bounds。　　The　President　himself　values　the　evidence　of　the　past。

He　tells　us　that　at　a　certain　point　of　our　history　more　than　two

hundred　millions　of　dollars　had　been　applied　for　to　make

improvements；　and　this　he　does　to　prove　that　the　treasury　would

be　overwhelmed　by　such　a　system。　　Why　did　he　not　tell　us　how　much

was　granted？　　Would　not　that　have　been　better　evidence？　　Let　us

turn　to　it；　and　see　what　it　proves。　　In　the　message　the　President

tells　us　that　〃during　the　four　succeeding　years　embraced　by　the

administration　of　President　Adams；　the　power　not　only　to

appropriate　money；　but　to　apply　it；　under　the　direction　and

authority　of　the　General　Government；　as　well　to　the　construction

of　roads　as　to　the　improvement　of　harbors　and　rivers；　was　fully

asserted　and　exercised。〃　　This；　then；　was　the　period　of　greatest

enormity。　　These；　if　any；　must　have　been　the　days　of　the　two

hundred　millions。　　And　how　much　do　you　suppose　was　really

expended　for　improvements　during　that　four　years？　　Two　hundred

millions？　　One　hundred？　　Fifty？　　Ten？　　Five？　　No；　sir；　less　than

two　millions。　　As　shown　by　authentic　documents；　the　expenditures

on　improvements　during　1825；　1826；　1827；　and　1828　amounted　to　one

million　eight　hundred　and　seventy…nine　thousand　six　hundred　and

twenty…seven　dollars　and　one　cent。　　These　four　years　were　the

period　of　Mr。　Adams's　administration；　nearly　and　substantially。

This　fact　shows　that　when　the　power　to　make　improvements　〃was

fully　asserted　and　exercised；〃　the　Congress　did　keep　within

reasonable　limits；　and　what　has　been　done；　it　seems　to　me；　can　be

done　again。



Now　for　the　second　portion　of　the　messagenamely；　that　the

burdens　of　improvements　would　be　general；　while　their　benefits

would　be　local　and　partial；　involving　an　obnoxious　inequality。

That　there　is　some　degree　of　truth　in　this　position；　I　shall　not

deny。　　No　commercial　object　of　government　patronage　can　be　so

exclusively　general　as　to　not　be　of　some　peculiar　local

advantage。　　The　navy；　as　I　understand　it；　was　established；　and　is

maintained　at　a　great　annual　expense；　partly　to　be　ready　for　war

when　war　shall　come；　and　partly　also；　and　perhaps　chiefly；　for

the　protection　of　our　commerce　on　the　high　seas。　　This　latter

object　is；　for　all　I　can　see；　in　principle　the　same　as　internal

improvements。　　The　driving　a　pirate　from　the　track　of　commerce　on

the　broad　ocean；　and　the　removing　of　a　snag　from　its　more　narrow

path　in　the　Mississippi　River；　cannot；　I　think；　be　distinguished

in　principle。　　Each　is　done　to　save　life　and　property；　and　for

nothing　else。



The　navy；　then；　is　the　most　general　in　its　benefits　of　all　this

class　of　objects；　and　yet　even　the　navy　is　of　some　peculiar

advantage　to　Charleston；　Baltimore；　Philadelphia；　New　York；　and

Boston；　beyond　what　it　is　to　the　interior　towns　of　Illinois。　　The

next　most　general　object　I　can　think　of　would　be　improvements　on

the　Mississippi　River　and　its　tributaries。　　They　touch　thirteen

of　our　States…Pennsylvania；　Virginia；　Kentucky；　Tennessee；

Mississippi；　Louisiana；　Arkansas；　Missouri；　Illinois；　Indiana；

Ohio；　Wisconsin；　and　Iowa。　　Now　I　suppose　it　will　not　be　denied

that　these　thirteen　States　are　a　little　more　interested　in

improvements　on　that　great　river　than　are　the　remaining

seventeen。　　These　instances　of　the　navy　and　the　Mississippi　River

show　clearly　that　there　is　something　of　local　advantage　in　the

most　general　objects。　　But　the　converse　is　also　true。　　Nothing　is

so　local　as　to　not　be　of　some　general　benefit。　　Take；　for

instance；　the　Illinois　and　Michigan　Canal。　　Considered　apart　from

its　effects；　it　is　perfectly　local。　　Every　inch　of　it　is　within

the　State　of　Illinois。　　That　canal　was　first　opened　for　business

last　April。　　In　a　very　few　days　we　were　all　gratified　to　learn；

among　other　things；　that　sugar　had　been　carried　from　New　Orleans

through　this　canal　to　Buffalo　in　New　York。　　This　sugar　took　this

route；　doubtless；　because　it　was　cheaper　than　the　old　route。

Supposing　benefit　of　the　reduction　in　the　cost　of　carriage　to　be

shared　between　seller　and　the　buyer；　result　is　that　the　New

Orleans　merchant　sold　his　sugar　a　little　dearer；　and　the　people

of　Buffalo　sweetened　their　coffee　a　little　cheaper；　than　before；…

…a　benefit　resulting　from　the　canal；　not　to　Illinois；　where　the

canal　is；　but　to　Louisiana　and　New　York；　where　it　is　not。　　In

other　transactions　Illinois　will；　of　course；　have　her　share；　and

perhaps　the　larger　share　too；　of　the　benefits　of　the　canal；　but

this　instance　of　the　sugar　clearly　shows　that　the　benefits　of　an

improvement　are　by　no　means　confined　to　the　particular　locality

of　the　improvement　itself。　　The　just　conclusion　from　all　this　is

that　if　the　nation　refuse　to　make　improvements　of　the　more

general　kind　because　their　benefits　may　be　somewhat　local；　a

State　may　for　the　same　reason　refuse　to　make　an　improvement　of　a

local　kind　because　its　benefits　may　be　somewhat　general。　　A　State

may　well　say　to　the　nation；　〃If　you　will　do　nothing　for　me；　I

will　do　nothing　for　you。〃　　Thus　it　is　seen　that　if　this　argument

of　〃inequality〃　is　sufficient　anywhere；　it　is　sufficient

everywhere；　and　puts　an　end　to　improvements　altogether。　　I　hope

and　believe　that　if　both　the　nation　and　the　States　would；　in　good

faith；　in　their　respective　spheres　do　what　they　could　in　the　way

of　improvements；　what　of　inequality　might　be　produced　in　one

place　might　be　compensated　in　another；　and　the　sum　of　the　whole

might　not　be　very　unequal。



But　suppose；　after　all；　there　should　be　some　degree　of

inequality。　　Inequality　is　certainly　never　to　be　embraced　for　its

own　sake；　but　is　every　good　thing　to　be　discarded　which　may　be

inseparably　connected　with　some　degree　of　it？　　If　so；　we　must

discard　all　government。　　This　Capitol　is　built　at　the　public

expense；　for　the　public　benefit；　but　does　any　one　doubt　that　it

is　of　some　peculiar　local　advantage　to　the　property…holders　and

business　people　of　Washington？　　Shall　we　remove　it　for　this

reason？　　And　if　so；　where　shall　we　set　it　down；　and　be　free　from

the　difficulty？　　To　make　sure　of　our　object；　shall　we　locate　it

nowhere；　and　have　Congress　hereafter　to　hold　its　sessions；　as　the

loafer　lodged；　〃in　spots　about〃？　　I　make　no　allusion　to　the

present　President　when　I　say　there　are　few　stronger　cases　in　this

world　of　〃burden　to　the　many　and　benefit　to　the　few；〃　of