Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

was not to be extended beyond the limits of Michigan territory.1

At the end of the session of 1829-1830, Jackson "pocketed" bills authorizing a subscription to the stock of the Louisville and Portland Canal Company, and appropriating money for rivers, harbors, and light - houses. His statement of reasons, embodied in his annual message of the following December, took a decidedly bolder tone. Such bills as that relating to the Louisville and Portland Canal Company were improper, he declared, not only because the corporation was a private one, but also because federal and state or local powers ought to be kept distinct. If such subscriptions are made, the power of the United States in local affairs will become "almost inconceivable," and "dangerous to the liberties of the people." The river and harbor bill was attacked on the ground of its local items, and its provision for the survey of rivers and removal of obstructions which projected canals are intended to avoid. The need of retrenchment was particularly insisted upon. Over five million dollars had already been spent for internal improvements, while the cost of enterprises projected or surveyed aggregated over ninety - six million dollars; yet even with this large outlay the benefits of such undertakings cannot be equitably distributed. A report submitted to the House, February 10,

Richardson, Messages and Papers, II., 483.
Ibid, II., 508-517.

1831, controverted these figures, insisted that by "internal improvements" were properly to be understood only roads and canals in the interior of the country and the clearing of rivers above tidewater, and recommended the continuance of appropriations.1

The message of December, 1831, again argued at great length the proposed distribution of the surplus revenue among the states for the benefit of internal improvements. It is noticeable that in this connection Jackson reiterates his opinion that no adjustment of the tariff is to be anticipated which will do away with a considerable surplus. Of interest, also, in view of the character of Jackson's veto, is his protestation of "reluctance and anxiety" at the exercise of the "undoubted right" to veto bills on grounds of constitutionality. Most characteristic of all is the frank admission that some of the arguments adduced in the Maysville veto were not essential to the decision of the case in hand, but were brought forward in order to arouse the interest and obtain the judgment of the people. With "full allowance" for "all irregular expressions of public opinion" as "of necessity attended with some doubt as to their accuracy," Jackson is nevertheless convinced that the vetoes have received popular approval. If the wishes of "the people" have been mistaken, the Constitution provides a

1 Debates of Congress, VII., App., xxxv.-xlii. Richardson, Messages and Papers, II., 514.

[ocr errors]

way by which a more acceptable executive may be obtained. No president ever proclaimed his own consciousness of rectitude more frankly, or challenged popular condemnation more boldly, than did Jackson in these remarkable utterances.

The vetoes were variously received. Grundy wrote to Jackson, July 31, 1830, that the Maysville veto had increased the administration strength in Maine, New Hampshire, and New York, and had "done no harm" in Pennsylvania; Maryland was divided, but that elsewhere in the south there was scarcely any opposition. In Grundy's opinion, the support of Jackson would now rest more on principle and less on personal grounds.1 Crawford wrote approvingly to Van Buren, but thought a constitutional convention the "best and only means" to give effect to Jackson's views, and urged Van Buren to bring the matter before the legislature of New York as a means of influencing other states. Calhoun, of course, had to admit the propriety of a constitutional amendment. Clay, on the other hand, assured Webster that the Maysville veto would strengthen the opposition, particularly since the road lay through the part of Kentucky most favorable to Jackson; and he suggested a constitutional amendment restricting the veto power.

Jackson MSS.

• Crawford to Van Buren, January 3, 1831, Van Buren MSS.; Calhoun, Corresp. (Jameson's ed.), 297; Webster, Private Corresp., I., 504.

cases.

In his annual message of December 4, 1832, Jackson again argued against expenditures for internal improvements without constitutional sanction, and urged Congress not to act favorably in doubtful Two days later he vetoed a river and harbor bill which contravened his principle about local improvements, though stating that he would have signed it had it contained national objects only.1 Finally, in his sixth annual message, December 1, 1834, he gives his reasons for "pocketing," at the end of the last session, a bill for the improvement of the Wabash River, because it was a local bill and contrary to his previous action. "I am not hostile to internal improvements," he declared, "and wish to see them extended to every part of the country. But I am fully persuaded, if they are not commenced in a proper manner, confined to proper objects, and conducted under an authority generally conceded to be rightful, that a successful prosecution of them cannot be reasonably expected.""

The question of federal aid to railroads did not become important in Jackson's time, partly, no doubt, because the railroad was not for some years able to compete with the canal. A bill to authorize a subscription to the stock of the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad, chartered in 1827, was laid on the table in the Senate in the session of 1829-1830. An act of March 2, 1833, authorized the state of Illinois to use the proceeds of the sale of canal lands, granted in 1827, to construct a railroad, but the permission was not utilized. A right of way for a railroad in Florida was granted in 1835, and a similar privilege to the New Orleans and Nashville Railroad Company in 1836, but it was not until 1850 that the system of railroad land grants was fairly inaugurated.1

1 Richardson, Messages and Papers, II., 601, 638. Ibid., III., 118-122.

Jackson undoubtedly gave effective check to the further progress of internal improvements at the expense of the federal government. With the exception of the Cumberland Road, no appropriation seems to have been made by Congress after 1829, with the approval of the president, for roads in any state, save an item of twenty thousand dollars, in 1833, to be expended in Alabama." Appropriations for roads in the territories, however, and for the improvement of rivers and harbors, continued, on the whole in increasing amount. Gross expenditures for roads and canals, aggregating $2,737,000 from 1826 to 1830, reached $4,210,000 from 1831 to 1835. It cannot be said that Jackson's opposition achieved consistency. His contention that only works of a national character should receive

Debates of Congress, VI., 455; U. S. Statutes at Large, IV., 778; V., 65; VI., 662.

Report of Secretary of War, January 7, 1847 (Senate Docs., 22 Cong., 2 Sess., No. 44).

Dewey, Financial Hist. of the U.S., 216; Report on Internal Improvement Bills Reported, 1815-1835 (House Reports, 24 Cong., 1 Sess., No. 850).

« ForrigeFortsett »