SENATE.]

Messrs. POINDEXTER and PORTER argued further in favor of the claim.

And the report was laid on the table. EXEMPTION OF MERCHANDISE FROM DUTIES. The bill to exempt merchandise imported into the United States from the operations of the act of May, 1828, entitled an act in alteration of the several acts imposing duties on imports, was then taken up as in Committee of the Whole.

tor.

Mr. WEBSTER stated that this bill had been introduced by his colleague, [Mr. SILSBEE,] and had been referred to the Committee on Finance, by which it had been reported without amendment. It was the same bill which had been before Congress last session, and had then passed the Senate as it had done before. He believed there could be no necessity for any discussion | of the bill, as it must be well understood by every SenaMr. WRIGHT adverted to the great importance of the bill, as a reason why it should not be passed, without great consideration. He stated the circumstances under which the bill had passed, and the reasons which operated to fix the date to which its benefits were to be limited at the 1st of September. The merchants stood on broad ground when they claimed the extension of the exemption until the 1st of September, because they had sent out large orders which it would have been impossible to countermand before that time. But there was an essential difference when this extension was claimed now to the 31st of December, being five months beyond the original time prescribed by the bill. As to the amount of duties which it would be necessary to refund, if the time were thus extended, it could not be ascertained, without a call through the Treasury Department, and the four principal custom-houses of the Union. The Secretary estimated that if relief were extended only to the 1st of September, it would require a repayment of $450,000. He had not learned that any estimate had been made on the basis of the extension to the 31st of December.

Mr. SILSBEE made some observations in explanation of the condition of the merchants, and the necessity of the extension of the time, but we could not distinctly catch the purport of his remarks, so as to be able to give an accurate report. He believed the merchants had an equitable claim to the exemption, and that it ought to be provided.

Mr. WRIGHT and Mr. SILSBEE mutually explained. The bill was then reported to the Senate without amendment.

Mr. HILL asked for the yeas and nays on the question of the engrossment of the bill, and they were ordered.

The question was then taken on the engrossment, and decided in the affirmative, as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Bell, Buchanan, Clay, Clayton, Ewing, Frelinghuysen, Hendricks, Kent, Knight, Naudain, Poindexter, Prentiss, Robbins, Silsbee, Smith, Sprague, Swift, Tomlinson, Waggaman, Webster-20.

NAYS-Messrs. Benton, Bibb, Black, Brown, Calhoun, Grundy, Hill, Kane, King of Alabama, King of Georgia, Leigh, Moore, Morris, Robinson, Shepley, Tallmadge, Tipton, White, Wright-19.

IMPROVEMENT OF THE WABASH. The bill for the improvement of the navigation of the Wabash river was then taken up for consideration, as in Committee of the Whole.

Mr. HENDRICKS said that the position be occupied in relation to the bill now before the Senate, as well as to former bills on the same subject, rendered it necessary and-proper for him to say a few words on the present

[JAN. 2, 1835.

occasion; that duty and inclination alike impelled him to this course; and that if any apology should be thought necessary for obtruding himself on the attention of the Senate, it would be found on the table of every Senator, in the form of instructions to himself and his colleague, from the Legislature of the State they represent. These accompanied the printed report recently made by the Committee on Roads and Canals on the subject of this bill.

It would be recollected, said Mr. HENDRICKS, that at the last session, the bill to improve the navigation of the Wabash, about which so much had recently been said here and elsewhere, had been introduced by himself on leave of the Senate. It would also be recollected that, heretofore, himself and his colleague had been unsuccessful in endeavoring to have the improvement of this river classed with works of internal improvement already begun, however firmly they were of opinion that the Wabash and Erie canal, a work now in rapid progress, and a work to which this Government had made large appropriations of public lands, was but a part and portion of this very work; and that that appropriation of public lands would fairly class the improvement of the Wabash with works already begun by the means of the Federal Government. They had been, however, foiled in their attempts to have it so considered by the Senate. This work, the improvement of the river, was then classed with new objects of internal improvement, and became an item in the harbor bill of 1832, which received the veto of the President. We all recollect, said Mr. H., that bill and its history. The work, in the opinion of its friends, having such high claims to national importance, was only endangered in 1832 by the society in which it was found; for it was most certainly believed, and especially by the friends of the present administration, that this item, unconnected with others, would not have met the disapprobation of the President. Murmurs, too, were heard, somewhat loud and reproachful, against members of the delegation, who were supposed to have had this matter more especially in charge, for permitting it thus to be classified and defeated.

In this view of the matter, then, and that it might stand on its own basis, and alone, I determined at the last session, said Mr. H., to present it in a separate bill, drawn up in the same language, and asking for the same amount, which had been sanctioned by both Houses, as an item of the harbor bill. In this form it was presented to the Senate; in this form it passed both Houses, and was presented for the signature of the Executive. I give this history of it to present it fairly before the Senate. It was my intention, had the resolution referring it to the committee not been introduced by my colleague, to have asked leave of the Senate, and to have introduced the same bill; but the one form is as good as the other, and the same result is produced.

The views of the President on the subject of internal improvement I very much regret; because, in their effects, they are, in my opinion, injurious to the prosperity of the Union, and especially are they so to the great interior whence I come. With his views, however, it is unnecessary on the present occasion to conflict; for this bill stands upon its own basis, and is not, as I believe, obnoxious to his objections. But I would here merely remark on the subject generally, that it does seem to me reasonable that this Government, being the great landholder of the West, and in all the new States, should sustain a portion of the expense in making the principal primary roads. The owners of the soil in the new States, whose property is supposed to be increased in value by roads when made, are taxed for making them; and why should the Government be exempt from its fair proportion of the assessment? But

the case is still stronger in relation to rivers, which the Federal Government declare to be public highways, assume jurisdiction of, retain perpetually the ownership of, exclude them from the surveys, and thus prevent them from becoming private property of the citizens, or the property of the States through which they flow. If the Government of the Union has not power to improve them, where does it get the power of jurisdiction over them? For that power of ownership and jurisdiction necessarily excludes the ownership and jurisdiction of the States. If the States have neither ownership nor jurisdiction, they surely have not the power of taking possession of them, even for the purpose of improving them. If they have no control over the bed of the river, how can they stop a channel here, and open another there? or drain the river into a feeder, for the purpose of canals?

The Congress of 1787, by its ordinance, declared the river Wabash a navigable river; and this has been repeated by the act of 1796, and other subsequent acts in relation to other streams of the new States. The rapids of the Wabash, below Vincennes, say for fifteen miles, will certainly be best improved by a canal of that length, or perhaps longer. A few years ago a corps of engineers were instructed to examine many places proposed for the location of a western armory. Now, suppose this armory to be located and put in motion there, would this Government permit the States of Indiana and Illinois to withdraw the water of that river from a valuable pub. lic work, into the feeder of a canal? If the river belong to the Federal Government, the States cannot, without permission of the Government, enter upon it even for the purposes of improvement. The power of improvement, then, seems inseparably connected with ownership and jurisdiction. To say that the latter exists in this Government, and not the former, is to say that the improvement can never be made without a compact on that subject between the Federal Government and that of the States. And no one would contend that such a compact could confer any power, which was not previously in the constitutions of the respective Govern ments. The power of improving the navigation of rivers, surely belonged to the States before the formation of the Union. It is since either transferred to the Government of the United States, or, not being so transferred, is reserved to the States, or, by the formation of the constitution of the United States, it is entirely annihilated. Now, in the case of the Wabash, it is not reserved to the States; for, by compact and ordinance, Congress declared its power over it, declared it a common public highway, and guarantied its free navigation for ever. The power, then, to improve this river, not being reserved to the States, is in the Federal Government, or it is annihilated. That it is not annihilated, but remains in this Government, under the sanction of the constitution of the United States, is obvious and certain, by reference to the sixth article of that instrument itself.

I will now, Mr. President, proceed to state some reasons for believing that this work of internal improvement, the navigation of the Wabash river, rests upon a basis essentially different from other ordinary objects, such as those chiefly comprised in the harbor bill of 1832. Indeed, I have great reason to believe that the President could not have been in possession of all the facts of the case, or he would have taken a totally dif ferent view of the whole matter. In the first instance, then, this is not a new work. It is emphatically an old work, commenced about two years ago, and now in successful progress. A work to which this Government has already appropriated a portion of her public lands, a portion of the very means by which the work is now carried on; for the canal is but an improvement of the navigation of the river in and through the State of Indi

ana.

[SENATE.

And what is this work? It is a work which, when finished, will form a perfect inland navigation between New York and New Orleans, on the shortest and most eligible route. It is true that the bill before the Senate is to improve the navigation of the Wabash river; and the appropriation, if made, will no doubt be chiefly expended in improving the rapids below Vincennes, possibly by a canal around them: for, whether that mode of improvement be now adopted or not, it will, no doubt, be the mode ultimately adopted. The canal will rather pause than stop at the mouth of the Tippecanoe. So greatly important will be that link in the chain which the Wabash is destined, for a while, to supply, that the canal will ultimately be constructed down the entire length of the Wabash to the Ohio river. And, sir, what was the origin, and what is the present condition of this work, already begun under the united auspices of the Federal Government, and that of the State of Indiana? The origin of the Wabash and Erie canal, said Mr. H., was a law of Congress of March 2, 1827, appropriating a quantity of the public lands, equal to five miles in width, along its whole line, to aid the State of Indiana in constructing a canal to unite the navigable waters of the Wabash river with those of Lake Erie. In addition to this important grant of lands, a corps of United States engineers was detailed to locate the canal, the whole expense being paid by this Government. The canal was located from the Maumee bay, on Lake Erie, across the summit level near fort Wayne, and down the Wabash river to the mouth of the Tippecanoe. The whole distance is two hundred and eleven miles, about seventyfive of which are within the limits of the State of Ohio, and the remaining one hundred and thirty-six within the State of Indiana. The State of Ohio has, by compact with the State of Indiana, agreed to construct that portion of the canal which lies within her own boundaries, and the State of Indiana has relinquished to her a corresponding portion of the grant. The State of Indiana has entered with spirit on her part of the work. She has sold a portion of her lands, and made other large appropriations, and the work is going rapidly on. It is proper here to remark, that the river below the mouth of the Tippecanoe has also been surveyed by an officer of the engineer corps, at the expense of the United States. An appropriation to that object was made in 1828; Captain Smith, of the corps of engineers, was detailed to that service in 1829, and made his report to the War Department in 1831. This report, with estimates of that officer, will be found on the tables of the members.

Of the one hundred and thirty-six miles spoken of, seventy are under contract, and about thirty-five at this moment completed. It is, furthermore, contemplated to finish the work in the year 1836 or '37. The State of Ohio, we believe, will not be long after that period in constructing her portion of it to the Maumee bay, and instead of being premature, then, as has been intimated, in asking for this appropriation for the river, this will, no doubt, be the last portion of the work done; it will, in all probability, be found undone when the canal shall be finished. This work, then, is vastly more important than the improvement of any other river of its size. It is more important in the extent and magnitude of the navigation with which it is connected, in the greatness of the commerce which it creates and accommodates, and in the unparalleled extent and productiveness of the regions of country through which it passes.

Another reason why I believe that the improvement of the navigation of the Wabash has stronger claims upon this Government than almost any other object presented, is that the importance of the navigation seems to have been within the view of the Government before the constitution was formed. It seems to have been pro

vided for by the Congress of the confederation, and the provision thus made to have been afterwards sanctioned by the constitution itself. I allude (said Mr. H.) to the ordinance of Congress of July, 1787, which is declared to be a compact, "unalterable unless by common consent," between the original States and the people and States in the Northwestern Territory, wherein the navigable waters of the Wabash, and of the Miami of Lake Erie, and the carrying places between them, are declared to be common highways. The ordinance alluded to is in these words:

"The navigable waters leading into the Mississippi and St. Lawrence, and the carrying places between the same, shall be common highways, and for ever free, as well to the inhabitants of the said Territory as to the citizens of the United States, and those of any other States that may be admitted into the confederacy, without any tax, impost, or duty therefor."

Now, sir, the people of the Northwestern Territory, at this time the people of the States of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and the Territory of Michigan, have never as yet requested any change in this ordinance. It remains now as it was then. It secures to the people of the then Northwestern Territory the free navigation of the riv ers leading into the Mississippi and the St. Lawrence, as well as the carrying places between them; and, although there is no positive stipulation, in so many words, that the Government of the Union shall improve, and keep in the condition of usefulness which the country may need and require, those great highways of commerce, yet the implied intention and pledge of the Government to do so has always appeared to me too strong to be resisted. Nor was the extent or binding obligation of this compact at all weakened by the constitution of the United States, adopted afterwards; for in that very constitution, by its sixth article, it is declared that "all debts contracted, and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this constitution as under the confederation." This ordinance, then, is sanctioned by the constitution itself.

In this view of the question it has always appeared to me that, instead of constitutional objections to these works of internal improvement, there is a direct constitutional obligation to carry them on and complete them; and I have always thought that, instead of aiding the State of Indiana in constructing the canal and improving the river, it was incumbent on the general Government to do both, without the interposition of the State. The carrying places referred to in that ordinance are well known to have been that at Fort Wayne, between the Wabash and the Miami of Lake Erie, and that at Chicago, between the waters of the Illinois river and those of Lake Michigan. There may have been others of less note, but these were the principal ones. That at Fort Wayne was especially well known. Its advantages and importance were perhaps even magnified, and there is little doubt that it was in reference to this, more than to any other, that the clause in the ordinance just referred to was framed and inserted. This carrying place had been known and used by the Indian traders before and during the Revolution. These had frequently passed over it in pirogues and canoes in rainy and flood seasons of the year; and, subsequent to that period, detachments of United States troops, with their baggage, have frequently passed over this portage or carrying place in the

same way.

[JAN. 2, 1835.

on that subject which it became my duty to make, as a member of the Committee on Roads and Canals, the ground of obligation on the part of the Federal Government to improve this carrying place, and to aid in this claim of inland navigation, was distinctly taken, and presented to the Senate.

This was relied on as a strong ground, and one which shielded the application then made from the constitutional difficulty about internal improvements. This ground was then sustained by the Senate. An appropriation of the public lands was made to this object in March, 1827, and by the united aid of this appropriation Land of the energies of the State, the canal is now in rapid progress.

The State of Indiana is unable, at this time, to prosecute and to accomplish this work. She has embarked largely, considering her age and her resources; and the canal which she is now pushing rapidly on is as much as ought to be expected from her at the present time. Where the interests of the General Government, as in the present case, are in unison with those of the State, the object decidedly one of national importance, and where the obligations of the Federal Government to the people of the State and of the United States, in the construction of this work, are paramount to all others, it does seem reasonable that an appropriation should be unhesitatingly granted to aid in making this improvement; otherwise it must be left undone till the State of Indiana shall have finished her canal-which canal must still remain, for a great portion of the year, comparatively useless, till the river shall be improved.

The people of the Western country, (said Mr. H.,) as a matter of necessity, consume foreign goods almost to the entire amount of their surplus productions; and the landholder in that country is deeply interested in every facility of transportation to and from the country. That which diminishes transportation adds to the value of his agricultural productions, as well as diminishes the cost of custom-house goods. Every facility, too, of transportation diminishes the difficulty and expense of emigrants in getting to the country; brings more means and more people into the country; saves more of their means to purchase public lands after they get there; increases the receipts into the land offices, and is of lasting benefit to the emigrating classes of the old States.

In all ages of the world of which history gives us any knowledge, wheresoever civilization and the arts of peace have flourished most, there internal improvements have been most fostered by the Government; there roads and canals have been made to subserve the great purposes of agriculture and commerce; and the most warlike nations of the earth have also made these improvements the means of national defence, and used them as the most important facilities in offensive war. But considerations of this kind might be multiplied to an unlimited extent, and I shall not dwell upon them.

I have, sir, (said Mr. H.,) the most implicit confidence in the declaration of the President, in which he regrets that he could not give his assent to the Wabash bill. I believe that his feelings and inclinations were wholly in its favor, and I sincerely regret that he had not taken the view of the case which I have endeavored to present. Had he taken this view, I cannot but think that he would have come to a different conclusion; and to this different conclusion, it does seem to me, he might have arrived without in the least receding from any ground be has heretofore taken on the subject of internal improvements.