SECTION I. SECTION I. 
One of the most important constitutional questions that hasarisen in the United States is one, regarding InternalImprovements, which has grown out of a failure of foresight inthe makers of the constitution. No set of men could be expectedto foresee every great question which must arise during theadvancement of a young country; and there is no evidenceof its having occurred to any one, in the early days of therepublic, to inquire whether the general government should havepower to institute and carry on public works, all over theStates; and under what limitations. Many inconsistent andcontradictory proceedings have taken place in Congress,since the question was first raised; and it remainsunsettled.
For some years after the Revolution, the treasury had enoughto do to pay the debts of the war, and defray the expensesattendant upon the organisation of the new system. As soon as asurplus was found to be in hand, suggestions were heardabout improving the country. In 1796, Mr. Madison proposed aresolution to cause a survey to be made for a road from north tosouth, through all the Atlantic States. No appropriation was madefor the purpose: but no objection was offered on the ground ofthe general government not having power to make suchappropriation. The difficulty of access to the great westernwilderness was represented to Congress uncler Mr. Jefferson'sadministration, in 1802; and a law was passed, makingappropriations for opening roads in the north west territory.This was the first appropriation made by Congress for purposes ofinternal improvement. Many similar acts followed; and road-makingand surveying the coast went on expeditiously, and to a greatextent. In 1807, Mr. Gallatin prepared the celebrated Report tothe Senate, which contains a systematic plan for the improvementof the whole country. In 1812, during Mr. Madison'sadministration, a survey was authorised of the main post roadfrom Maine to Georgia. Improvement under the sanction of Congresswent on with increased activity into the administration of Mr.Monroe, by whom the first check was given. Mr. Monroe vetoed thebill authorising the collection of tolls for the repair of theCumberland road. The reason assigned for the veto was that it wasone thing to make appropriations for public works, and anotherthing to assume jurisdiction and sovereignty over the soil onwhich such works were erected; and President Monroe did notbelieve that Congress could assume power to levy toll.* By hisadoption of a subsequent act, involving the same principles,however, it seemed that he had changed his opinion, or resolvedto yield the question.
Mr. J. Q. Adams's advocacy of internal improvements removedsome lingering difficulties; and, while he was President, thepublic works were carried on with great activity. The southernmembers of Congress, however, were generally opposed to theexercise of this power by the general government: and it has eversince been a strongly debated question.
President Jackson's course on the subject has not been veryconsistent. Before his election, he always voted for internalimprovements, going so far as to advocate subscriptions bygovernment to the stock of private canal companies, and theformation of roads beginning and ending within the limits ofparticular States. In his message at the opening of the firstCongress after his accession, he proposed the division of thesurplus revenue among the States, as a substitute for thepromotion of internal improvements by the general government. Heattempted a limitation and distinction too difficult andimportant to be settled and acted upon on the judgment andknowledge of one man, --a distinction between general and localobjects. It is manifestly impossible to draw the line with anyprecision. The whole Union is benefited by the Erie canal, thoughit lies wholly within the limits of the State of New York; and athousand positions of circumstances may be imagined by whichlocal advantages may become general, and general local, so as toconfound the limitation altogether. At any rate, the judgment andknowledge of any individual, or any cabinet, are obviouslyunequal to the maintenance of such a distinction.
In 1829 and 1830, the President advocated such an amendment ofthe constitution as would authorise Congress to apply the surplusrevenue to certain specified objects, involving the general good;and he strongly objected to the general government exercising apower, considered by him unconstitutional, merely because therewas a quantity of money in the treasury which must be disposedof. He has since changed his opinion, and believes that less evilwould be incurred by even suddenly reducing the revenue to theamount of the wants of the government, than by conferring on thegeneral government immense means of patronage, and opportullityfor corrupt and wasteful expenditure.
These changes of opinion in President Jackson prove nothing soclearly as the great difficulty of the subject. It is, however,so pressing and so important that, notwithstanding itsdifficulty, it must be settled before long.
The opposing arguments seem to me to be these.
The advocates of a concession to Congress of the power ofconducting internal improvements plead, with regard to theconstitutionality of the power, that it is conferred by theclauses which authorise Congress to make post-roads: to regulatecommerce between the States: to make and carry on war; (andtherefore to have roads by which to transport troops;) to laytaxes, to pay the debts, and provide for the general welfare ofthe United States: and to pass all laws necessary to carry intoeffect its constitutional powers.
The answer is, that to derive from these clauses anycountenance of the practice of spending without limit the publicfimds, for objects which any present government may declare to befor the general welfare, is an obvious straining of theinstrument: that, by such methods, the constitution may be madeto authorise the spending of any amount whatever, for any purposewhatever: that it is the characteristic of the constitution tospecify the powers given to Congress with a nicety which iswholly inconsistent with such a boundless conveyance of power asis here presumed: and that, accordingly, the permission to laytaxes, to pay the debts, and provide for the general welfare ofthe United States, is limited as to its objects by the precedingspecifications: and that, finally, the powers allotted to theState governments exclude the supposition that Congress isautllorised to assume such territorial jurisdiction as it hasbeen allowed to practice within the limits of the several States.
This last set of opinions appeals to disinterested observersso obviously reasonable, that the wonder is how so weak a standon the provisions of the constitution can have been maintainedfor any length of time. The reason is, that the pleas ofexpediency are so strong as to counterbalance the w eakness ofthe constitutional argument. But, this being the case, the trulyhonest and patriotic mode of proceeding would be to add to theconstitution by the means therein provided; instead of strainingthe instrument to accomplish an object which was not present tothe minds of its framers.
The pleas of the advocates of Internal Improvements are these:that very extensive public works, designed for the benefit of thewhole Union, and carried through vast portions of its area, mustbe accomplished: that an object so essential ought not to be leftat the mercy of such an accident as the cordial agreement of therequisite number of States, to carry such works forward to theircompletion; that the surplus funds accruing from the whole nationcannot be so well employed as in promoting works by which thewhole nation will be benefited: and that, as the interests of themajority have hitherto upheld Congress in the use of this power,it may he assumed to be the will of the majority that Congressshould continue to exercise it.
The answer is, that it is inexpedient to put a vast anclincreasing patronage into the hands of the general government:that only a very superficial knowedge can be looked for inmembers of Congress as to the necessity or value of worksproposed to be instituted in any parts of the States but those inwhich they are respectively interested: that endless jealousieswould arise between the various States,** from the impossibilityor undesirableness of equalising the amount of appropriation madeto each: that useless works would be proposed from the spirit ofcompetition, or individual interest:*** and that corruption,co-extensive with the increase of power, would deprave thefunctions of the general government.
There is much truth on both sides here. In the first set ofpleas there is so much force that they have ceased to be, whatthey were once supposed, the distinctive doctrines of the federalparty. Mr. Webster is still considered the head of the InternalImprovements party; and Mr. Calhoun was for some time the leaderof its opponents. Jefferson's latest opinions were strong againstthe power claimed and exercised by Congress. Yet large numbers ofthe democratic party are as strenuous for internal improvementsas Adams and Webster themselves; the interests of the majoritybeing clearly on that side.
To an impartial observer it appears that Congress has noconstitutional right to devote the public funds to internalimprovements, at its own unrestricted will and pleasure: that thepermitted usurpation of the power for so long a time indicatesthat some degree of such power in the hands of the generalgovernment is desirable and necessary: that such power should begranted through an amendment of the constitution, by the methodstherein provided: that, in the mean time, it is perilous that theinstrument should be strained for the support of any function,however desirable its exercise may be.
In case of the proposed addition being made to theconstitution, arrangements will, of course, be entered into fordetermining the principles by which general are to bedistinguished from local objects, or whether such distinctioncan, on any principle, be fixed; for testing the utility ofproposed objects; for checking extravagant expenditure, jobbing,and corrupt patronage: in short, the powers of Congress will bespecified, here, as in other matters, by express permission andprohibition. These details, difficult or unmanageable amidst thequestionable exercise of a great power, will, doubtless, bearranged so as to work with precision, when the will of themajority is brought to bear directly upon them.
It is time that this great question should be settled.Congress goes on making appropriations for a road here, a canalthere, a harhour or a lighthouse somewhere else. All these may ormay not be necessary. Meantime, those who have law on their side,exclaim against extravagance, jobbing, and encroachment onpopular rights. Those who have expediency on their side pleadnecessity, the popular will, and the increasing surplus revenue.
If the constitution provides means by which law, expediency,and the prevention of abuse, can be reconciled to thesatisfaction of all, surely the sooner it is done the better.Thus the matter appears to a passing stranger.
* President Jackson is of opinion tbat no toll should belevied on ways provided by the public revenue. lt sbouid be acompiete and finat outlay, and none of the people compelled topay for works effected by the people's money. This seems clearlyright.
** South Carolina was in favour of Internal Improvements, tillit was found how mucb larger a share of the benefit would beappropriated by tbe active and prosperous northern States than bythose which are depressed by slavery. Since that discovery, SouthCarolina's sectional jealousy has been unbounded, and heropposition to the exercise of the power very fierce. In herperiodical publications, as well as through otber channels, shehas declared herself neglected, or likely to be neglected, onaccount of her being southern. The enterprise of the North anddepression of the South are, as usual, looked upon as favour andneglect, shown by the general government.
*** When I was ascending the Mississippi, I observed alight-house perched on a bluff; in a ridiculous situation. Onasking the meaning of the phenomenon, I nas told that a senatorfrom the State of Mississippi, wishing to make a flourish abouthis zeal for the improvement of his State, had obtained anappropriation from Congress to build this light-house, which isof no earthly use.
From Harriet Martineau, Society in America, VolumeII, Part II, Chapter II, Section I, - "Internal Improvements." London: Saunders and Otley, 1837, pp. 209-218.
Forward to Society in America, Vol II,Chapter III, "Manufactures."
Back to Society in America, Volume II,Part II, Chapter II, - "Transport and Markets."
Back to Society in America - Table ofContents
Back to the Dead Sociologists'Society Index