each State is left entirely dependant upon appropriations by. Congress, from the national treasury, which has, by the above provisions of the constitution, been constituted the sole recepticle of all means, which can be legitimately raised for that purpose.

And here your committee respectfully beg leave to ask the question: which one of the seven states, situated in the lake portion of this valley, could, by a tax, or in any other way, raise the means for improving a lake harbor, without the manifest injustice of taxing persons having no interest whatever in the improvement? Each of the states, Michigan excepted, having other commercial avenues the patrons of which, feel no interest in the improvement of lake harbors, while Michigan, having an extent of lake coast, equal to that of all the other States, could not tax her citizens for the improvement of any one of her numerous harbors, with the least semblance of justice for, as a naval shelter, each of her harbors upon the lower peninsula is quite as important to the commerce of Indiana, Illinois and Wisconsin, as to that of her own.

The improvement by the States of the harbors of Lakes Superior and Ontario, would be attended with similar difficulties. Nor can your committee perceive, that any State in the Mississippi portion of this valley can, with justice to its inhabitants, improve the Mississippi within or along its borders, for there is no power possessed either by the State or by Congress, to compel the co-operation of other States with the State undertaking the improvement, and the State making the improvement would be guilty of the injustice of taxing its citizens, to make an improvement which would be equally used by the citizens of other States without paying any thing therefor.

Nor can your committee admit, that means raised by a duty of tonage laid with the consent of Congress, as suggested by Mr. Calhoun, in his report upon the Memphis convention resolutions, would, in the smallest degree, be less objectionable. A duty of tonage, should never be laid, except upon vessels bound upon long voiages, with a certainty of full cargoes. It would be against public policy, to lay a duty of tonage upon vessels navigating the lakes or the Mississippi, as it would have a tendency to keep vessels from our ports, and to increase the price of freights, especially upon small lots of

property. But this is not the only difficulty. It is expressly prohibited by the federal constitution. The commerce of the lakes, and that of the Mississippi, especially upper Mississippi, is carried on almost exclusively in American vessels. The constitution provides that vessels bound to or from one State, shall not be obliged to enter, clear or pay duties in another.

Your committee believe, that they might here, with safety, close the investigation and insist that the entire and unqualified surrender of the revenue proceeds of their commerce by the State, and the acceptance of them by Congress imposes upon Congress, under the five and six general propositions submitted by the committee, the strongest constitutional obligations to extend to the commerce of the States, all the safety and facility required by a sound of public policy.

For they are unwilling to believe that any person will after mature deliberation, attempt to maintain the position that the states have surrendered their commercial revenue to Congress, and that Congress has or can accept the trust, without incurring the obligation to execute it with fidelity.

But fortunately for this great interest, its rights have not been permitted to depend entirely upon logical deductions.

The federal constitution not only invests Congress with the sole power to raise a commercial revenue, but the power to appropriate it in extending commercial safety and facility, is as generally and as specifically given, to Congress by the constitution, as any other power contained in that instrnment.

.1 In that part of the constitution which provides that the Congress shall have power to provide for the general welfare of the United States.

2. In that part of it which provides that the Congress shall have power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.

Your committee are aware that Mr. Calhoun's report upon the Memphis Convention resolutions, "denies that there is in constitutional language, any general welfare of the United States, but such as belongs to them in their united or federal character, as members of the Union."-That "the general welfare, in that language, is the

welfare which appertains to them in that character, in contradistinction to their welfare as separate and individual states." That thus interpreted, the general welfare of the United States cannot extend beyond the powers delegated by the constitution, as it is only to that extent that they are united, or have a federal character."―That" beyond this, they constitute separate and distinct communities, and as such have no Union, nor common defence, nor general welfare to be provided for." But they think that Mr. Calhoun has not with his usual discriminaton, marked the distinction between the United States and their government; and your committee here most respectfully ask what constitutes the United States, if it be not the several sovereign and independent states united? What general welfare have the United States to be provided for, except that which results from the general welfare of the several states united? In what way can Congress provide for the general welfare of the United States, unless it be by providing for the welfare of the respective states united? Will it be pretended that the welfare of the United States in their foreign relations only, was intended to be provided for? This is both generally and specifically provided for in other portions of the constitution And if this be all that was intended to be provided for, the power might be stricken from the constitution without diminishing its powers. It will be admitted also that our foreign relations may be in a very favorable condition, and yet the general welfare very much neglected.

Will it be claimed that this is a genaral power, and that it does not authorize any particular thing to be done? Your committee cannot conceive that this diminishes its value, for if it be merely declaratory, it nevertheless declares that Congress shall have power to provide for the general welfare of the United States; and if it be not a specific power, it still requires Congress so to construe and execute the specific powers contained in the constitution as to provide for the general welfare of the United States, which can only be done by providing for the general welfare of the several States united.

Before leaving this subdivision of the federal constitution, your committee beg leave to say, that to them it is one of great interest. It is here, that in permitting Congress to lay and collect taxes, du

ties, imposts, and excises, the several States surrendered what they had ever considered to be their dearest rights; those very rights which they had refused to surrender to the mother country, and in defence of which the patriots of the revolution had periled their lives. And with the surrender of these rights, they also necessarily surrendered unto Congress the control and protection of what they had ever considered to be their dearest interest, that interest which reaches the heart and tells upon the destiny of every man, from the most humble to the most affluent-that interest, upon the proper regulation and protection of which, the general welfare of every State must so essentially depends. And it is here, even in the same sentence which invests Congress with power to collect the commercial revenue, that Congress is also invested with as full power to provide for the general welfare of the States united, by extending safety and facility to the commerce of those who ultimately pay the commercial revenue; as it is, " to provide for the common defence."

But if the power to provide for the general welfare be a general power, requiring the exercise of some of the specific powers of the constitution for the accomplishment of the desirable ends guarntied by it, your committee think that such specific power is amply delegated to Congress, in that part of the constitution which provides that "The Congress shall have power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes."

Before giving their own opinions relative to this specific power, the committee beg leave to present those of Mr. Calhoun, found on page nine of the report already alluded to:

"It remains to be considered, (says Mr. Calhoun,) whether there is any power delegated to the general government, the carrying of which into execution would authorize appropriations and expenditures for the improvement of the navigation of the Mississippi and its waters."

"Your committee, after a full and mature consideration of the subject, are of the opinion that there is, and that it is to be found in he power to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among

the several States,' and more especially in that to regulate it among the States."

Again, on page ten, Mr. Calhoun holds the following language: "Having now shown what is the restriction imposed on the power by the terms 'among the States,' your committee will next proceed to consider what power is conferred on Congress within that restriction by the terms 'to regulate commerce.'

"They are of opinion, after due reflection, that they confer on it all the powers which, by a fair interpretation, belonged to them, as fully as the States themselves possessed it, except such, if there be any, as may be prohibited by the constitution from being exercised either expressly or impliedly."

Upon page twelve is found the following language: "So important was the power to regulate commerce, and especially among the States, regarded, that it was among the first subjects which claimed the attention of the government after it went into operation. On the 7th of April, 1789, just one month after the commencement of the government, an act of Congress became a law by the approval of the President, entitled an act for the establishment of light-houses, buoys, beacons, and public piers, that is moles raised for the shelter of vessels against storms or ice. It provides that all the expenses which shall accrue for the support and maintenance and repairs of such as were erected, placed or sunk by the States before the passing of the act for the safety and ease (facility) of navigation shall be defrayed by the treasury of the United States, with the proviso, that the expense should not be paid by the United States after one year, unless they should be ceded and vested in the United States, by the States to which they belong, with the lands and tene-. ments appertaining to them."

Having thus shown the opinions of the United States Senate committee, as expressed by their chairman, Mr. Calhoun, relative to the construction of the "power to regulate commerce,” every sentence of which claimed that under this power, Congress has, within certain restrictions, a right to make appropriations for the safety and facility of commerce, your committee will now proceed to a more minute investigation of "the power to regulate commerce with