improvements。　　The　driving　a　pirate　from　the　track　of　commerce　on
  the　broad　ocean；　and　the　removing　of　a　snag　from　its　more　narrow
  path　in　the　Mississippi　River；　cannot；　I　think；　be　distinguished
  in　principle。　　Each　is　done　to　save　life　and　property；　and　for
  nothing　else。
  The　navy；　then；　is　the　most　general　in　its　benefits　of　all　this
  class　of　objects；　and　yet　even　the　navy　is　of　some　peculiar
  advantage　to　Charleston；　Baltimore；　Philadelphia；　New　York；　and
  Boston；　beyond　what　it　is　to　the　interior　towns　of　Illinois。　　The
  next　most　general　object　I　can　think　of　would　be　improvements　on
  the　Mississippi　River　and　its　tributaries。　　They　touch　thirteen
  of　our　States…Pennsylvania；　Virginia；　Kentucky；　Tennessee；
  Mississippi；　Louisiana；　Arkansas；　Missouri；　Illinois；　Indiana；
  Ohio；　Wisconsin；　and　Iowa。　　Now　I　suppose　it　will　not　be　denied
  that　these　thirteen　States　are　a　little　more　interested　in
  improvements　on　that　great　river　than　are　the　remaining
  seventeen。　　These　instances　of　the　navy　and　the　Mississippi　River
  show　clearly　that　there　is　something　of　local　advantage　in　the
  most　general　objects。　　But　the　converse　is　also　true。　　Nothing　is
  so　local　as　to　not　be　of　some　general　benefit。　　Take；　for
  instance；　the　Illinois　and　Michigan　Canal。　　Considered　apart　from
  its　effects；　it　is　perfectly　local。　　Every　inch　of　it　is　within
  the　State　of　Illinois。　　That　canal　was　first　opened　for　business
  last　April。　　In　a　very　few　days　we　were　all　gratified　to　learn；
  among　other　things；　that　sugar　had　been　carried　from　New　Orleans
  through　this　canal　to　Buffalo　in　New　York。　　This　sugar　took　this
  route；　doubtless；　because　it　was　cheaper　than　the　old　route。
  Supposing　benefit　of　the　reduction　in　the　cost　of　carriage　to　be
  shared　between　seller　and　the　buyer；　result　is　that　the　New
  Orleans　merchant　sold　his　sugar　a　little　dearer；　and　the　people
  of　Buffalo　sweetened　their　coffee　a　little　cheaper；　than　before；…
  …a　benefit　resulting　from　the　canal；　not　to　Illinois；　where　the
  canal　is；　but　to　Louisiana　and　New　York；　where　it　is　not。　　In
  other　transactions　Illinois　will；　of　course；　have　her　share；　and
  perhaps　the　larger　share　too；　of　the　benefits　of　the　canal；　but
  this　instance　of　the　sugar　clearly　shows　that　the　benefits　of　an
  improvement　are　by　no　means　confined　to　the　particular　locality
  of　the　improvement　itself。　　The　just　conclusion　from　all　this　is
  that　if　the　nation　refuse　to　make　improvements　of　the　more
  general　kind　because　their　benefits　may　be　somewhat　local；　a
  State　may　for　the　same　reason　refuse　to　make　an　improvement　of　a
  local　kind　because　its　benefits　may　be　somewhat　general。　　A　State
  may　well　say　to　the　nation；　〃If　you　will　do　nothing　for　me；　I
  will　do　nothing　for　you。〃　　Thus　it　is　seen　that　if　this　argument
  of　〃inequality〃　is　sufficient　anywhere；　it　is　sufficient
  everywhere；　and　puts　an　end　to　improvements　altogether。　　I　hope
  and　believe　that　if　both　the　nation　and　the　States　would；　in　good
  faith；　in　their　respective　spheres　do　what　they　could　in　the　way
  of　improvements；　what　of　inequality　might　be　produced　in　one
  place　might　be　compensated　in　another；　and　the　sum　of　the　whole
  might　not　be　very　unequal。
  But　suppose；　after　all；　there　should　be　some　degree　of
  inequality。　　Inequality　is　certainly　never　to　be　embraced　for　its
  own　sake；　but　is　every　good　thing　to　be　discarded　which　may　be
  inseparably　connected　with　some　degree　of　it？　　If　so；　we　must
  discard　all　government。　　This　Capitol　is　built　at　the　public
  expense；　for　the　public　benefit；　but　does　any　one　doubt　that　it
  is　of　some　peculiar　local　advantage　to　the　property…holders　and
  business　people　of　Washington？　　Shall　we　remove　it　for　this
  reason？　　And　if　so；　where　shall　we　set　it　down；　and　be　free　from
  the　difficulty？　　To　make　sure　of　our　object；　shall　we　locate　it
  nowhere；　and　have　Congress　hereafter　to　hold　its　sessions；　as　the
  loafer　lodged；　〃in　spots　about〃？　　I　make　no　allusion　to　the
  present　President　when　I　say　there　are　few　stronger　cases　in　this
  world　of　〃burden　to　the　many　and　benefit　to　the　few；〃　of
  〃inequality；〃　than　the　Presidency　itself　is　by　some　thought　to
  be。　　An　honest　laborer　digs　coal　at　about　seventy　cents　a　day；
  while　the　President　digs　abstractions　at　about　seventy　dollars　a
  day。　　The　coal　is　clearly　worth　more　than　the　abstractions；　and
  yet　what　a　monstrous　inequality　in　the　prices！　　Does　the
  President；　for　this　reason；　propose　to　abolish　the　Presidency？
  He　does　not；　and　he　ought　not。　　The　true　rule；　in　determining　to
  embrace　or　reject　anything；　is　not　whether　it　have　any　evil　in
  it；　but　whether　it　have　more　of　evil　than　of　good。　　There　are　few
  things　wholly　evil　or　wholly　good。　　Almost　everything；　especially
  of　government　policy；　is　an　inseparable　compound　of　the　two；　so
  that　our　best　judgment　of　the　preponderance　between　them　is
  continually　demanded。　　On　this　principle　the　President；　his
  friends；　and　the　world　generally　act　on　most　subjects。　　Why　not
  apply　it；　then；　upon　this　question？　　Why；　as　to　improvements；
  magnify　the　evil；　and　stoutly　refuse　to　see　any　good　in　them？
  Mr。　Chairman；　on　the　third　position　of　the　message　the
  constitutional　questionI　have　not　much　to　say。　　Being　the　man　I
  am；　and　speaking；　where　I　do；　I　feel　that　in　any　attempt　at　an
  original　constitutional　argument　I　should　not　be　and　ought　not　to
  be　listened　to　patiently。　　The　ablest　and　the　best　of　men　have
  gone　over　the　whole　ground　long　ago。　　I　shall　attempt　but　little
  more　than　a　brief　notice　of　what　some　of　them　have　said。　　In
  relation　to　Mr。　Jefferson's　views；　I　read　from　Mr。　Polk's　veto
  message：
  〃President　Jefferson；　in　his　message　to　Congress　in　1806；
  recommended　an　amendment　of　the　Constitution；　with　a　view　to
  apply　an　anticipated　surplus　in　the　treasury　'to　the　great
  purposes　of　the　public　education；　roads；　rivers；　canals；　and　such
  other　objects　of　public　improvement　as　it　may　be　thought　proper
  to　add　to　the　constitutional　enumeration　of　the　federal　powers'；
  and　he　adds：　'I　suppose　an　amendment　to　the　Constitution；　by
  consent　of　the　States；　necessary；　because　the　objects　now
  recommended　are　not　among　those　enumerated　in　the　Constitution；
  and　to　which　it　permits　the　public　moneys　to　be　applied。'　　In
  1825；　he　repeated　in　his　published　letters　the　opinion　that　no
  such　power　has　been　conferred　upon　Congress。〃
  I　introduce　this　not　to　controvert　just　now　the　constitutional
  opinion；　but　to　show　that；　on　the　question　of　expediency；　Mr。
  Jefferson's　opinion　was　against　the　present　President；　that　this
  opinion　of　Mr。　Jefferson；　in　one　branch　at　least；　is　in　the　hands
  of　Mr。　Polk　like　McFingal's　gun〃bears　wide　and　kicks　the　owner
  over。〃
  But　to　the　constitutional　question。　　In　1826　Chancellor　Kent
  first　published　his　Commentaries　on　American　law。　　He　devoted　a
  portion　of　one　of　the　lectures　to　the　question　of　the　authority
  of　Congress　to　appropriate　public　moneys　for　internal
  improvements。　　He　mentions　that　the　subject　had　never　been
  brought　under　judicial　consideration；　and　proceeds　to　give　a
  brief　summary　of　the　discussion　it　had　undergone　between　the
  legislative　and　executive　branches　of　the　government。　　He　shows
  that　the　legislative　branch　had　usually　been　for；　and　the
  executive　against；　the　power；　till　the　period　of　Mr。　J。Q。　Adams's
  administration；　at　which　point　he　considers　the　executive
  influence　as　withdrawn　from　opposition；　and　added　to　the　support
  of　the　power。　　In　1844　the　chancellor　published　a　new　edition　of
  his　Commentaries；　in　which　he　adds　some　notes　of　what　had
  transpired　on　the　question　since　1826。　　I　have　not　time　to　read
  the　original　text　on　the　notes；　but　the　whole　may　be　found　on
  page　267；　and　the　two　or　three　following　pages；　of　the　first
  volume　of　the　edition　of　1844。　　As　to　what　Chancellor　Kent　seems
  to　consider　the　sum　of　the　whole；　I　read　from　one　of　the　notes：
  〃Mr。　Justice　Story；　in　his　Commentaries　on　the　Constitution　of
  the　United　States；　Vol。　II。；　pp。　429…440；　and　again　pp。　519…538；
  has　stated　at　large　the　arguments　for　and　against　the　proposition
  that　Congress　have　a　constitutional　authority　to　lay　taxes　and　to
  apply　the　power　to　regulate　commerce　as　a　means　directly　to
  encourage　and　protect　domestic　manufactures；　and　without　giving
  any　opinion　of　his　own　on　the　contested　doctrine；　he　has　left　the
  reader　to　draw　his　own　conclusions。　　I　should　think；　however；
  from　the　arguments　as　stated；　that　every　mind　which　has　taken　no
  part　in　the　discussion；　and　felt　no　prejudice　or　territorial　bias
  on　either　side　of　the　question；　would　deem　the　arguments　in　favor
  of　the　Congressional　power　vastly　superior。〃
  It　will　be　seen　that　in　this　extract　the　power　to　make
  improvements　is　not　directly　mentioned；　but　by　examining　the
  context；　both　of　Kent　and　Story；　it　will　be　seen　that　the　power
  mentioned　in　the　extract　and　the　power　to　make　improvements　are
  regarded　as　identical。　　It　is　not　to　be　denied　that　many　great
  and　good　men　have　been　agai