public policy, unless, as before stated, expressly prohibited by the constitution.

Your committee now beg leave to invite attention to the restrictions upon the exercise of this power by Congress. After much investigation they have been able to find but two; the first is the jurisdiction of the respective states; the second is, public policy or in the language of the constituti on, "the general welfare."

The first results from the sovereignty of the states. It cannot therefere restrict in the least degree, the exercise of this power by Congress in the improvement of any of the navigable streams and public roadsteads of the United States, because Congress has commercial jurisdiction over them and can improve them without infringing upon the sovereignty or jurisdiction of the respective

states.

This jurisdiction of the United States is extended beyond the navigable waters of the United States in that provision of the constitution which provides that "Congress shall have power to exercise exclusive legislation, in all cases whatsoever, over all the places purchased by the consent of the legislatures of the states in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards and other needful buildings.”

How far Congress may extend its jurisdiction by purchasing lands with the consent of the states, for the erection of “ dock-yards, and other needful buildings," your committee will not now attempt to ascertain, but they think it must be admitted, that Congress may so far extend its jurisdiction, under this provision, as in the language of the constitution, "to provide for the general welfare of the United States."

is not so

The second restriction upon the exercise of this power, easily disposed of. It being " public policy" or "the public good," or in the language of the constitution, "the general welfare," no precise limit to the exercise of this power by Congress, under this restriction, can ever be defined; but your committee think that a general rules may be established which will essentially aid in ascertaining what improvements most strongly commend themselves to the attention of Congress.

There is no state within this lake and Mississippi valley the com

merce of whose citizens does no float upon some of the navigable streams or public roadsteads, upon which also floats the commerce of the citizens of other states. It must, therefore, be the duty of Congress to direct its attention more especially to those streams and roadsteads upon which a large amount of commerce floats.

The Grand River of Michigan is entirely within the state of Michigan. An improvement of that river by the U. States would benefit the citzens of Michigan only. The improvement of the harbor at the mouth of Grand River would not only benefit the citizens of Michigan, but would also benefit the citizens of all the states situated in the lake portion of this western valley; and an improvement of the navigation of the Hudson river would not only benefit the commerce of that portion of the citizens of Michigan who would be benefitted by an improvement of the Grand River, but it would benefit the commerce of every citizen of Michigan, and of the balance of the lake portion of the valley. It must, therefore, be apparent to every one, that it would be more just to the inhabitants of the lake valley, and even to the inhabitants of Michigan, to improve the harbor at the mouth of Grand River, or even to improve the Hudson river, than to improve the Grand River of Michigan.

Your committee think there should be but little difficulty in selecting the streams and roadsteads to be improved by Congress. The question is not whether the stream is in one, two, or more states, but it is entirely one of public utility. A stream entirely within one state is as much under the commercial control of Congress as a stream running through six states. The Hudson river is as much under the commercial control of Congress, as the waters washing its headlands from New York to Boston. And can it be pretended that the Hudson river, which annually bears on its bosom a hundred millions of commerce, and at the mouth of which a large portion of the revenue of the United States is collected, is beyond the reach of improvement by Congress, merely because it is within two states; and that the states of New York and New Jersey, neither of which can collect any revenue from this vast commerce, must either improve this river at their own expense for the use of this commerce, or that the owners of this commerce must continue to be subject to hazards, and high rates of insurance and transportation. Such a construction of the " power to regulate commerce among the several

states," would not, in the opinion of your committee, give to Congress" the power to provide for the general welfare of the United States."

Nor would it be just to require the states of New York and New Jersey to form an alliance, with the consent of Congress, for the improvement of the Hudson river, as suggested by Mr. Calhoun and then contribute through the national treasury to the improvement of rivers running through three or more states. Nor do your committee believe that the constitution restricts an alliance with the consent of Congress to two states only; for if two states may with the consent of Congress form an alliance, may not each o these form an alliance with others? and in this way may not all the states of the Mississippi valley form an alliance for the improvement of the Mississippi river, with quite as much propriety as the states of New York and New Jersey for the improvement of the Hudson ?

Nor do your committee know anyting about "the external commerce of the states with each other" or the commerce of one state with another, as suggested by Mr. Calhoun, and they here beg leave to repeat, that from the power to regulate commerce among the several states, Congress derives its commercial jurisdiction over all the navigable waters among the several states, and also its right to regulate commercial transportation upon all the navigable waters among the several states, whether said waters run through one state or six states. That Congress has a right to improve any of the navigable waters among the several states, but is not necessarily required to improve all. That it is not the length of a stream or the number of states through which it runs, nor the extent of a navigable water among the states, which entitles it to improvement by Congress, but the amount of commerce requiring transportation upon it, the hazards and expenses of the transportation, and the number of inhabitants of the respective states interested in said commerce. This your committee believe to be the true criterion by which to judge of the necessity of appropriations for commercial safety and facility, and they also believe Congress may with as much propriety make appropriations to extend commercial facilities as to insure commercial safety, provided it will in as great a degree promote the general welfare; and that this is the only con

struction of the power to regulate commerce which would enable Congress to provide for the general welfare of the United States.

Your committee think they have now shown that all the navigable waters of this western valley are as perfectly under the commercial jurisdiction of Congress as the waters of the Chesepeake Bay, and that Congress is under the same obligation to extend safety and facility to commercial transit upon the former as upon the latter, whenever required by "public policy" ("general welfare") provided it can be done without encroachment upon the constitutional jurisdiction of the several states, they will now proceed to notice briefly, works which are by many claimed to be of this cha

racter.

The falls in St. Mary's river of Lake Superior, and the falls of the Ohio at Louisville, Kentucky, are the most important, and are claimed to be of this character, because the navigation at these points can be effectually improved and only by the construction of canals around the falls with navigable locks for the passage of such watercraft as may be required by the commerce of the respective rivers, that not only during their construction but after their completion it would be necessary for Congress to establish and maintain its jurisdiction within the jurisdiction of the state, that such jurisdiction by the general government would be incompatible with the jurisdiction of the respective states, and inadmissible unless authorized by the supreme laws of the land.

After careful investigation of this claimed restriction upon the power of Congress, your committee have come to the conclusion, that the portages between the navigable waters above and below the falls of the respective rivers, are as unqualifiedly under the commercial jurisdiction of the United States, as the streams themselves. The ordinance of 1787, for the government of the territory of the United States northwest of the river Ohio, expressly provides "that the navigable waters leading into the Mississippi and St. Lawrence and the carrying places between the same, shall be common highways, and forever 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, duty or impost therefor." This provision of the

ordinance is confirmed by the 1st subdivision of the 8th article of the federal coustitution, which provides that "all debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this constitu tion, shall be as valid against the United States under this constitution as under the confederation.

The above provisions of the ordinance and federal constitution place the carrying places around the falls of the Ohio and also those of St. Mary's river as unqualifiedly under the commercial jurisdiction of Congress as they do the rivers themselves, but should there still remain doubts in the mind of any one relative to the right of Congress to exercise the jurisdiction necessary to the construction and manngement of said canals, your committee think this doubt should be removed by that provision of the federal constitution which provides that "the Congress shall have power to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over all places purcha sed, by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards and other necessary buildings."

If it be claimed that a canal is not a building, your committee would respectfully suggest that the term buildings is as applicable to canals as to dock-yards, and they consider this construction strengthened and even warranted by the fact that it is one of those general delegations of power so necessary to enable Congress to accomplish the objects specifically provided for in the constitution. And the fact that dock-yards and other needful buildings are the terms used, should be received as evidence that the convention intended to give Congress a general power to erect any building or construct any work, the erection or construction of which shall be found necessary to carry out or accomplish any of the specific powers of the constitution.

If it be claimed that these improvements are within the ability of incorporated companies, and are therefore not entitled to the consideration of Congress, your committee would say, that they find no such discrimination in the constitution. That the practice of incorporating companies for works of the above description, is against public poliuy, and that is the duty of Congress to extend the necessary facilities to those great commercial highways, and save their