regarded　as　identical。　　It　is　not　to　be　denied　that　many　great
  and　good　men　have　been　against　the　power；　but　it　is　insisted　that
  quite　as　many；　as　great　and　as　good；　have　been　for　it；　and　it　is
  shown　that；　on　a　full　survey　of　the　whole；　Chancellor　Kent　was　of
  opinion　that　the　arguments　of　the　latter　were　vastly　superior。
  This　is　but　the　opinion　of　a　man；　but　who　was　that　man？　　He　was
  one　of　the　ablest　and　most　learned　lawyers　of　his　age；　or　of　any
  age。　　It　is　no　disparagement　to　Mr。　Polk；　nor　indeed　to　any　one
  who　devotes　much　time　to　politics；　to　be　placed　far　behind
  Chancellor　Kent　as　a　lawyer。　　His　attitude　was　most　favorable　to
  correct　conclusions。　　He　wrote　coolly；　and　in　retirement。　　He　was
  struggling　to　rear　a　durable　monument　of　fame；　and　he　well　knew
  that　truth　and　thoroughly　sound　reasoning　were　the　only　sure
  foundations。　　Can　the　party　opinion　of　a　party　President　on　a　law
  question；　as　this　purely　is；　be　at　all　compared　or　set　in
  opposition　to　that　of　such　a　man；　in　such　an　attitude；　as
  Chancellor　Kent？　　This　constitutional　question　will　probably
  never　be　better　settled　than　it　is；　until　it　shall　pass　under
  judicial　consideration；　but　I　do　think　no　man　who　is　clear　on　the
  questions　of　expediency　need　feel　his　conscience　much　pricked
  upon　this。
  Mr。　Chairman；　the　President　seems　to　think　that　enough　may　be
  done；　in　the　way　of　improvements；　by　means　of　tonnage　duties
  under　State　authority；　with　the　consent　of　the　General
  Government。　　Now　I　suppose　this　matter　of　tonnage　duties　is　well
  enough　in　its　own　sphere。　　I　suppose　it　may　be　efficient；　and
  perhaps　sufficient；　to　make　slight　improvements　and　repairs　in
  harbors　already　in　use　and　not　much　out　of　repair。　　But　if　I　have
  any　correct　general　idea　of　it；　it　must　be　wholly　inefficient　for
  any　general　beneficent　purposes　of　improvement。　　I　know　very
  little；　or　rather　nothing　at　all；　of　the　practical　matter　of
  levying　and　collecting　tonnage　duties；　but　I　suppose　one　of　its
  principles　must　be　to　lay　a　duty　for　the　improvement　of　any
  particular　harbor　upon　the　tonnage　coming　into　that　harbor；　to　do
  otherwiseto　collect　money　in　one　harbor；　to　be　expended　on
  improvements　in　anotherwould　be　an　extremely　aggravated　form　of
  that　inequality　which　the　President　so　much　deprecates。　　If　I　be
  right　in　this；　how　could　we　make　any　entirely　new　improvement　by
  means　of　tonnage　duties？　　How　make　a　road；　a　canal；　or　clear　a
  greatly　obstructed　river？　　The　idea　that　we　could　involves　the
  same　absurdity　as　the　Irish　bull　about　the　new　boots。　　〃I　shall
  niver　git　'em　on；〃　says　Patrick；　〃till　I　wear　'em　a　day　or　two；
  and　stretch　'em　a　little。〃　　We　shall　never　make　a　canal　by
  tonnage　duties　until　it　shall　already　have　been　made　awhile；　so
  the　tonnage　can　get　into　it。
  After　all；　the　President　concludes　that　possibly　there　may　be
  some　great　objects　of　improvement　which　cannot　be　effected　by
  tonnage　duties；　and　which　it　therefore　may　be　expedient　for　the
  General　Government　to　take　in　hand。　　Accordingly　he　suggests；　in
  case　any　such　be　discovered；　the　propriety　of　amending　the
  Constitution。　　Amend　it　for　what？　　If；　like　Mr。　Jefferson；　the
  President　thought　improvements　expedient；　but　not　constitutional；
  it　would　be　natural　enough　for　him　to　recommend　such　an
  amendment。　　But　hear　what　he　says　in　this　very　message：
  〃In　view　of　these　portentous　consequences；　I　cannot　but　think
  that　this　course　of　legislation　should　be　arrested；　even　were
  there　nothing　to　forbid　it　in　the　fundamental　laws　of　our　Union。〃
  For　what；　then；　would　he　have　the　Constitution　amended？　　With　him
  it　is　a　proposition　to　remove　one　impediment　merely　to　be　met　by
  others　which；　in　his　opinion；　cannot　be　removed；　to　enable
  Congress　to　do　what；　in　his　opinion；　they　ought　not　to　do　if　they
  could。
  Here　Mr。　Meade　of　Virginia　inquired　if　Mr。　Lincoln　understood　the
  President　to　be　opposed；　on　grounds　of　expediency；　to　any　and
  every　improvement。
  Mr。　Lincoln　answered：　In　the　very　part　of　his　message　of　which　I
  am　speaking；　I　understand　him　as　giving　some　vague　expression　in
  favor　of　some　possible　objects　of　improvement；　but　in　doing　so　I
  understand　him　to　be　directly　on　the　teeth　of　his　own　arguments
  in　other　parts　of　it。　　Neither　the　President　nor　any　one　can
  possibly　specify　an　improvement　which　shall　not　be　clearly　liable
  to　one　or　another　of　the　objections　he　has　urged　on　the　score　of
  expediency。　　I　have　shown；　and　might　show　again；　that　no　workno
  objectcan　be　so　general　as　to　dispense　its　benefits　with
  precise　equality；　and　this　inequality　is　chief　among　the
  〃portentous　consequences〃　for　which　he　declares　that　improvements
  should　be　arrested。　　No；　sir。　　When　the　President　intimates　that
  something　in　the　way　of　improvements　may　properly　be　done　by　the
  General　Government；　he　is　shrinking　from　the　conclusions　to　which
  his　own　arguments　would　force　him。　　He　feels　that　the
  improvements　of　this　broad　and　goodly　land　are　a　mighty　interest；
  and　he　is　unwilling　to　confess　to　the　people；　or　perhaps　to
  himself；　that　he　has　built　an　argument　which；　when　pressed　to　its
  conclusions；　entirely　annihilates　this　interest。
  I　have　already　said　that　no　one　who　is　satisfied　of　the
  expediency　of　making　improvements　needs　be　much　uneasy　in　his
  conscience　about　its　constitutionality。　　I　wish　now　to　submit　a
  few　remarks　on　the　general　proposition　of　amending　the
  Constitution。　　As　a　general　rule；　I　think　we　would　much　better
  let　it　alone。　　No　slight　occasion　should　tempt　us　to　touch　it。
  Better　not　take　the　first　step；　which　may　lead　to　a　habit　of
  altering　it。　　Better；　rather；　habituate　ourselves　to　think　of　it
  as　unalterable。　　It　can　scarcely　be　made　better　than　it　is。　　New
  provisions　would　introduce　new　difficulties；　and　thus　create　and
  increase　appetite　for　further　change。　　No；　sir；　let　it　stand　as
  it　is。　　New　hands　have　never　touched　it。　　The　men　who　made　it
  have　done　their　work；　and　have　passed　away。　　Who　shall　improve　on
  what　they　did？
  Mr。　Chairman；　for　the　purpose　of　reviewing　this　message　in　the
  least　possible　time；　as　well　as　for　the　sake　of　distinctness；　I
  have　analyzed　its　arguments　as　well　as　I　could；　and　reduced　them
  to　the　propositions　I　have　stated。　　I　have　now　examined　them　in
  detail。　　I　wish　to　detain　the　committee　only　a　little　while
  longer　with　some　general　remarks　upon　the　subject　of
  improvements。　　That　the　subject　is　a　difficult　one；　cannot　be
  denied。　　Still　it　is　no　more　difficult　in　Congress　than　in　the
  State　Legislatures；　in　the　counties；　or　in　the　smallest　municipal
  districts　which　anywhere　exist。　　All　can　recur　to　instances　of
  this　difficulty　in　the　case　of　county　roads；　bridges；　and　the
  like。　　One　man　is　offended　because　a　road　passes　over　his　land；
  and　another　is　offended　because　it　does　not　pass　over　his；　one　is
  dissatisfied　because　the　bridge　for　which　he　is　taxed　crosses　the
  river　on　a　different　road　from　that　which　leads　from　his　house　to
  town；　another　cannot　bear　that　the　county　should　be　got　in　debt
  for　these　same　roads　and　bridges；　while　not　a　few　struggle　hard
  to　have　roads　located　over　their　lands；　and　then　stoutly　refuse
  to　let　them　be　opened　until　they　are　first　paid　the　damages。
  Even　between　the　different　wards　and　streets　of　towns　and　cities
  we　find　this　same　wrangling　and　difficulty。　　Now　these　are　no
  other　than　the　very　difficulties　against　which；　and　out　of　which；
  the　President　constructs　his　objections　of　〃inequality；〃
  〃speculation；〃　and　〃crushing　the　treasury。〃　　There　is　but　a
  single　alternative　about　them：　they　are　sufficient；　or　they　are
  not。　　If　sufficient；　they　are　sufficient　out　of　Congress　as　well
  as　in　it；　and　there　is　the　end。　　We　must　reject　them　as
  insufficient；　or　lie　down　and　do　nothing　by　any　authority。　　Then；
  difficulty　though　there　be；　let　us　meet　and　encounter　it。
  〃Attempt　the　end；　and　never　stand　to　doubt；　nothing　so　hard；　but
  search　will　find　it　out。〃　Determine　that　the　thing　can　and　shall
  be　done；　and　then　we　shall　find　the　way。　　The　tendency　to　undue
  expansion　is　unquestionably　the　chief　difficulty。
  How　to　do　something；　and　still　not　do　too　much；　is　the
  desideratum。　　Let　each　contribute　his　mite　in　the　way　of
  suggestion。　　The　late　Silas　Wright；　in　a　letter　to　the　Chicago
  convention；　contributed　his；　which　was　worth　something；　and　I　now
  contribute　mine；　which　may　be　worth　nothing。　　At　all　events；　it
  will　mislead　nobody；　and　therefore　will　do　no　harm。　　I　would　not
  borrow　money。　　I　am　against　an　overwhelming；　crushing　system。
  Suppose　that；　at　each　session；　Congress　shall　first　determine　how
  much　money　can；　for　that　year；　be　spared　for　improvements；　then
  apportion　that　sum　to　the　most　important　objects。　　So　far　all　is
  easy；　but　how　shall　we　determine　which　are　the　most　important？
  On　this　question　comes　the　collision　of　interests。　　I　shall　be
  slow　to　acknowledge　that　your　harbor　or　your　river　is　more
  important　than　mine；　and　vice　versa。　　To　clear　this　difficul