publicans," to Mr. Monroe, instead of to its true author, Mr. Jefferson. Until he can expunge from the statute-book the four acts to which I have referred, and I know not how many other acts scattered broadcast along the pathway of our national legislation from 1789 to 1820,-not forgetting, certainly, that system of cotton minimums which was established in 1816 under the auspices of Mr. Lowndes and Mr. Calhoun,- he can make no headway whatever in maintaining such a position.

The honorable member, however, not merely insists that this whole system had its origin "about the year 1820,” but that it has always been the main subject of difference between the federal and republican parties. The true republican party, he again and again declared, have always been opposed to these measures. Now, Sir, I desire to join issue with him on this point also. I utterly deny the correctness of his position; and I proceed to plant myself upon authority, which he is the last person who will attempt to shake. The honorable member must have forgotten the speech of Mr. McDuffie, of South Carolina, on the subject of "Internal Improvements," in the year 1823. Or, certainly, he has overlooked the preface with which the printed copy of that speech was introduced to the world. Let me read to him, and to the House, the remarks which that preface contains, in allusion to a pamphlet which had just before been published under the title of Consolidation.

"Moreover, in the early history of parties, (says Mr. McDuffie,) and when Mr. Crawford advocated a renewal of the old charter (of the United States Bank,) it was considered a federal measure; which internal improvements never was, as this author erroneously states. This latter measure originated in the administration of Mr. Jefferson, with the appropriation for the Cumberland road; and was first proposed, as a system, by Mr. Calhoun, and carried through the House of Representatives by a large majority of the republicans, including almost every one of the leading men who carried us through the late war."

"The author in question, not content with denouncing as federalists General Jackson, Mr. Adams, Mr. Calhoun, and a majority of the South Carolina delegation in Congress, modestly extends the denunciation to Mr. Monroe and the whole republi

can party. Here are his words: During the administration of Mr. Monroe much has passed which the republican party would be glad to approve of, if they could; but the principal feature, and that which has chiefly elicited these observations, is the renewal of the system of internal improvements.' Now, this measure was adopted by a vote of 115 to 86 of a Republican Congress, and sanctioned by a Republican President. Who, then, is this author, who assumes the high prerogative of denouncing, in the name of the Republican party, the Republican administration of the country? A denunciation including, within its sweep, Calhoun, Lowndes, and Cheves; men who will be regarded as the brightest ornaments of South Carolina, and the strongest pillars of the Republican party as long as the late war shall be remembered, and talents and patriotism shall be regarded as the proper objects of the admiration and gratitude of a free people."

I should hardly have ventured, Sir, to address to the honorable member, on my own account, so severe an admonition as to the position which he has assumed, as he will find in these remarks of Mr. McDuffie. I trust that he will lay them duly to heart, and that he will realize the truth of the ancient proverb, that "faithful are the wounds of a friend."

Shall I add, Mr. Chairman, to the list which these paragraphs supply, the name of another most distinguished South Carolina statesman, now no more, whose memory demands a vindication from the charge, of having violated the true republican faith on this subject of internal improvements? About the year 1823, a bill was carried through Congress, "to procure the necessary surveys, plans, and estimates, upon the subject of roads and canals," and authorizing the President to cause such surveys, plans, and estimates, to be made, of the routes of such roads and canals as he might deem of national importance, in a commercial or military point of view, or for the transportation of the mail. In the progress of this bill through the Senate a proviso was offered, in the following terms:

"Provided, that nothing herein contained shall be construed to affirm or admit a power in Congress, on their own authority, to make roads and canals within any of the States of the

Union." Among the votes against this proviso, which was rejected, and in favor of the bill, which was passed, was that of the late lamented General Hayne.

If ever there was an act of Congress which sanctioned, to the fullest extent, the power of the general government to construct works of internal improvement, " of national importance in a commercial point of view," this was that act. And now, Sir, I repeat, that until Washington and the first Congress shall have been convicted of having misunderstood the meaning of the Constitution, and Lowndes, Cheves, Hayne, McDuffie, and Calhoun, of having been ignorant of the nature of true republi canism, this bill will be in no danger of being pronounced by the people, either unconstitutional or anti-republican.

But it is further objected to the bill under consideration, that it makes provision for mere local improvements, and that this government can appropriate money for nothing that is not national. I am willing to concur with gentlemen in the latter clause of this objection, and to confine the powers of the government to appropriations for national works. But the question is, what constitutes a national work? The object of almost every one of our appropriations must have a local habitation and a local name; yet this, certainly, will not be inconsistent with its having a national character and a national consequence. Your navy yards are local; your fortifications are local; your postoffices and post-roads are local; but no one is heard objecting to the annual appropriations connected with any of these subjects of expenditure, on the ground that they are not of national concern. The objection is reserved exclusively, and most unreasonably, as I think, for the precise description of objects for which this bill provides.

Let us then examine, for a moment, some one of the items in the bill, and see whether, even when separately considered, it will not assert its title to be regarded as a work of national importance. Here is a provision for expending forty thousand dollars in improving the harbor of Boston; and I take this item as an example, because the subject of it is more immediately within the range both of my personal knowledge, and of my official responsibility. The appropriation is one of the utmost

importance to the safe navigation of Boston harbor, and I am confident that, if it were rightly understood, there is no item in the bill which would commend itself more strongly to the support of the House. There is, Sir, but a single channel for entering the harbor of Boston by vessels of the largest class, and that, in some parts, a very narrow channel, and by no means a very deep one. On the immediate edge of this channel, there are a number of small islands. One of these islands, well known to navigators by the name of the Great Brewster, owing to the stone which formed its natural protection having been taken off for ballast, has been, for many years past, exposed to the most rapid devastation. It appears from the surveys of the Engineer department that, between the years 1820 and 1840, nearly six acres, or about one fourth of the whole, had been carried away from this island by the action of the waves and winds. The ravages committed upon it by the same elements, during the last five years, are believed to have been even in an accelerated ratio. Meantime, the preservation of the island has been pronounced by the Engineer department, to be "indispensable both as a cover of the anchorages and roadsteads, and also to the maintenance of the requisite depths in the channel." The whole detritus of this and the other adjacent islands is swept directly into the narrowest part of the channel, and the rapid shallowing which has resulted from the operation, is, at this moment, the cause of the most serious apprehension to our mariners and pilots. Of the urgent necessity, therefore, of a sea-wall upon this island, to arrest this process of destruction, (and this is the specific purpose of the provision under consideration,) no man will doubt.

But the point which I proposed to examine is, how far this item is one of national importance, and what are the obligations of the general government in regard to it.

Now, Sir, this particular provision may, I am aware, be vindicated upon many distinct grounds. In the first place, this same channel, whose preservation is at stake, is the only entrance to your great northern naval depot at Charlestown; and the same obstructions which would endanger the passage of our full-freighted packet-ships, would leave your full armed frigates

hopelessly aground. It may be matter of serious doubt whether, if this work be delayed for five years longer, a ship of the line, with its armament in position, could make its way out from the Charlestown navy yard.

In the next place, all your fortifications in this harbor have been arranged and constructed with a view to command the entrance of this channel, as it now runs. If the destruction of these islands should fall short of filling it up altogether, and should only result in materially changing its bearings, these works of defence, among the most complete and costly in the country, will be rendered comparatively worthless. It was in this view, Sir, that I pressed so earnestly for the insertion of this provision in the Fortification bill at the last session of Congress.

But it is before us now as a commercial measure, and it is as such that I now claim for it a national character and a national importance. What part of the country, Sir, less than the whole, is concerned in the safe and easy navigation of Boston harbor? Look to its foreign commerce, and to the revenue which is derived from it. During the last year, there were 2,330 arrivals at Boston from foreign ports more than six for every day in the year bringing $21,591,917 worth of goods, and paying into the Treasury $5,249,634 of duties. There were of course, not far from the same number of foreign clearances. Look to its coastwise trade. During the last year there were 5,631 coastwise arrivals in Boston about sixteen for every day in the year. From the port of New Orleans alone, as we have been told in one of the letters of "a certain Abbott Lawrence," (as an honorable member from New York just now termed him, and it was no bad description of him, for a most certain man he is — you always know where to find him, and may always rely confi dently on his statements)-from the port of New Orleans alone, I repeat, there were 165 arrivals, many of them of vessels of the largest class ships of from 500 to 700 tons burden eachbringing corn, flour, cotton, tobacco, beef, pork, lard, lead, &c., amounting to many millions of dollars in value.

Let me state, Sir, with something of particularity, the quantity of Southern and Western produce which finds its way into the harbor of Boston from New Orleans and other parts of the