and proper," and therefore constitutional, or the reverse, is a matter exclusively for the Congress and the executive.

What Jackson insists upon, in other words, is not only the right of the president to reject a bill on constitutional grounds in case he thinks the proposed act unwarranted under a decision of the supreme court, but an independent right of private judgment and official action on constitutional matters, whether the question at issue has been decided by the court or not. The first of these contentions was undoubtedly sound, but if the doctrine of the second were to be maintained, what would become of Webster's contention that the final interpreter of the supreme law of the land was the federal courts? Were the decisions of the courts, though binding upon individuals throughout the land, and even upon the states, of no application to the legislative and executive branches of the general government? Did Jackson mean to declare himself superior to the law?

The veto encountered vigorous, though formal, opposition in Congress. Webster put the case correctly when he said that the veto showed the president to be "against the bank, and against any bank constituted in a manner known either to this or any other country"; and that the responsibility for putting an end to the present bank would rest with him.' Clay declared that the veto power was "totally

1 Webster, Works (ed. of 1856), III., 417.

irreconcilable" with "the genius of representative government" "if it is to be frequently employed in respect to the expediency of measures, as well as their constitutionality"; and he later wrote to Biddle that the veto "has all the fury of a chained panther, biting the bars of his cage. Benton, on the other hand, found even his wealth of vocabulary and phrase too small to praise adequately the veto and its author, or to denounce the advocates of the bank.' The object of the speeches was, of course, to make political capital, for every one understood that the bank was doomed. The vote in the Senate, July 13, was 22 to 19, less than the two-thirds necessary to pass the bill over the veto.

The bank question was no longer one of finance, but of politics. It remained to be seen whether the bank would continue to regard the interests of the community, or whether, in bringing its career as a national institution to a close, it would use its power to embarrass the administration and the party at whose hands it had suffered.

1

Clay, Life and Speeches (ed. of 1843), II., 90; Clay, Private Corresp., I., 341.

'Benton, Thirty Years' View, I., 255–265.

THE

CHAPTER VIII

INTERNAL IMPROVEMENTS

(1796-1837)

HE participation of the federal government in what came to be known as internal improvements dates from 1796, when a grant of land was made to Ebenezer Zane in aid of the construction of a road from Wheeling, Virginia, to Maysville, Kentucky. The construction of the Cumberland Road was authorized by Congress in 1806, and appropriations for the road and its extensions were regularly made for a number of years, the total expenditures to 1836, when the road was abandoned to the states, aggregating nearly seven million dollars. Specific appropriations for the improvement of river navigation began in 1809.

1

A further development of the system took the form of subscriptions by the United States of stock in improvement companies. The Chesapeake and Delaware Canal Company (1825), the Louisville and

'The principal acts for the Cumberland Road are in U. S. Statutes at Large, II., 173-175, 179, 357-359; III., 489; VI., 27. See also Benton, Thirty Years' View, I., 26; Turner, Rise of New West (Am. Nation, XIV.).

Portland Canal Company (1826), the Dismal Swamp Canal Company (1826), and the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company (1828) all received federal aid in this way shortly before Jackson's first administration. In 1827 a grant of land was made to Illinois in aid of the construction of a canal connecting the Illinois River and Lake Michigan; and in 1828 a similar grant was made to Ohio in aid of the Miami Canal from Dayton to Lake Erie. Alabama received in 1828 a grant of four hundred thousand acres of land for the improvement of the navigation of the Tennessee River.' The states, as well as the national government, were active in improving their means of communication, though with many of them financial resources were small. Turnpikes, maintained in part by tolls, were extensively constructed. Canals were particularly in favor. The Erie Canal, begun in 1817 and finished in 1825, assured the commercial pre-eminence of New York.

In 1817 the movement for internal improvements received a check, when Calhoun's "bonus bill," setting aside the bank dividends and bonus as a permanent fund for the construction of roads and canals, was vetoed by Madison on constitutional grounds. Calhoun, at this time a nationalist, saw no reason why the expenditure of public money

'U.S. Statutes at Large, IV., 124, 139, 162, 169, 234, 290, 293, 305-307.

Cf. Babcock, American Nationality (Am. Nation, XIII.), chap. v.

should be restricted to the enumerated powers.1 The scruples of Madison were shared by Monroe, who in 1822 vetoed a bill appropriating money to erect toll-gates on the Cumberland Road. Under John Quincy Adams, however, there was a marked increase of activity, for Adams shared to the full the views of Clay, whose "American system” included internal improvements as one of its cardinal features. His successive annual messages reviewed with special satisfaction the progress of surveys and construction of roads and canals, while abundant revenue made appropriations easy.

A report submitted by the secretary of the treasury, December 20, 1830,2 showed that there had been appropriated by the United States to December 31, 1829, for internal improvements-the classification including the building of piers, preservation of ports and harbors, making roads, and removing obstructions from rivers-$1,603,694.21. To this was to be added $2,443,420.20 for the Cumberland Road, and $1,263,315.65 for subscriptions to canal stock and the improvement of the Ohio and Mississippi rivers. More than one-quarter of the expenditures for internal improvements-$490,288.97 -had been in New England and New York, nearly all, however, for harbors and navigable rivers. Almost an equal amount -$462,965.32-had been spent in Ohio. Indiana had received $115,067.49, 1 Calhoun, Works, II., 193.

House Reports, 21 Cong., 2 Sess., No 11.