were directed to be made of such roads and canals as the President might deem of material importance in a commercial or military point of view, or necessary for the transportation of the public mail, and appropriated a sum of money for the purpose.

The younger President Adams, in his inaugural address in 1825, alluded to this question; and his opinion seemed to be in favour of the right, as well as the policy, of a liberal application of the national resources to the internal improvement of the country. He intimated that speculative scruples on the subject would probably be solved by the practical blessings resulting from the application of the power. But in the year 1836, this subject was again discussed in Congress, and a bill passed by both houses, appropriating a sum of money for a subscription to the stock of a turnpike road, exclusively within the State of Kentucky, but leading from Maysville, in the interior of that state, to the River Ohio. This bill was returned by General Jackson, and, on the question of its passage notwithstanding the objections of the President, was finally lost in the House of Representatives, in which it had originated. In his annual message at the commencement of the session, the President had adverted to the difficulties which had before attended appropriations for purposes of internal improvement, and expressed a hope that some plan might be devised to attain its benefits in a satisfactory manner. He observed, that the mode adopted on former occasions had been deprecated by many as an infraction of the Constitution, while it had been viewed by others as inexpedient, and that all felt that it had been employed at the expense of harmony in the public councils. Upon returning the bill relative to the Maysville Road, he referred to the sentiments he had expressed at the opening of the session, and proceed

ed to consider the constitutional power of the General Government to construct or promote works of internal improvement, as then presenting itself, in two points of view: first, as bearing on the sovereignty of the states within whose limits the execution was contemplated, if jurisdiction of the territory they occupy were claimed as necessary to their preservation and use; the second, as asserting the simple right to appropriate money from the national treasury in aid of such works when undertaken by state authority, surrendering the claim of jurisdiction on the part of the United States.

In the first view, he regarded the question of power as an open one, which could be decided without the embarrassments attending the other, arising from the practice of the government. To the extent contemplated by this first view of the power, he asserted that, although frequently and strenuously attempted, it had never been attained in a single instance. The government, he insisted, did not possess it; and he therefore declared that no bill admitting it would receive his official sanction. But in the other view of the power, he considered the question differently situated, and remarked, that the ground taken at an early period of the government was, that whenever money raised by the general authority was proposed to be applied to a particular measure, a question arose whether that measure was within the enumerated authorities vested in Congress. If it were, the money requisite might be applied to it. If it were not, no such application could be made. In all cases, he averred, in which the power to apply money had, in fact, been exercised by the General Government, such grants had always been professedly under the control of the general principle, that the works thus aided should be of a general, not local;

1

of a national, not of a state character. This distinction he considered sufficiently definite and imperative to forbid his approbation of a bill of the character of that in question, which he was not able to view in any other light than as a measure purely local. As to the principle, indeed, he was indubitably right, but he was wrong in its application; for most assuredly, a road terminating on the very river which forms the great line of communication between the Western and the Atlantic States, must be considered of infinitely more importance in its general and national, than in its local and state character. The true rule on the subject, which seems to have been forgotten or disregarded on this occasion, had been laid down by Chief-justice Marshall long before, and is this: "That the action of the General Government should be applied to all the external concerns of the nation, and to those internal concerns which affect the states generally, but not to those which are completely within a particular state, which do not affect other states, and with which it is not necessary to interfere for the purpose of executing any of the general powers of the government."*

III. The powers to coin money, to regulate its value, and that of foreign coins, and to fix the standard of weights and measures, were possessed by the old Congress, with the exception of that relating to foreign coins. The new Constitution, therefore, supplied a material omission in the Articles of Confederation, by which the power of Congress was restrained to coin struck by its own authority, or that of the respective states. It must be obvious that the proposed uniformity in the value of the current coin might be destroyed by subjecting the foreign coin to the

* 10 Wheaton, 446.

different regulations of the several states. The power with respect to the coin, both domestic and foreign, is rendered exclusive, by a subsequent provision of the Constitution, prohibiting the individual states from its exercise. And the power of fixing the standard of weights and measures seems also proper to be exclusively exercised by Congress; but until it shall legislate on the subject, each state, it is presumed, retains the right of adopting and regulating its own standard.

The power of providing for the punishment of counterfeiting the public securities and current coin of the United States is incidental to the foregoing powers relative to the coin, and in itself seems to purport the exclusion of state power, as it is an appropriate means for carrying into effect other delegated powers not antecedently existing in the states. It appears, nevertheless, by the acts of Congress relative to this subject, that cognizance of such cases may, under certain circumstances, be concurrently exercised by the state courts. The Judiciary Act of 1789, vested, as we have seen, in the Federal Courts, exclusive jurisdiction of all offences cognizable under the authority of the United States, unless where their laws should otherwise direct.* The states, therefore, could not exercise a concurrent jurisdiction in those cases without coming into direct collision with the laws of Congress. But by a proviso in a subsequent act concerning counterfeiters of the current coins of the United States, Congress has declared that the jurisdiction of the Federal Courts, in certain specified cases, should not be exclusive; so that the concurrent jurisdiction of the state courts is restored, so far as it can be exercised under state authority. There are, besides, other acts

* Wheaton, 26, 11. J. R., 549.

of Congress which permit jurisdiction over the offences described in them to be exercised by the state courts under the same condition, and in all these cases where the jurisdiction of the state courts is made concurrent with that of the Federal Courts, the sentences of the one, whether of acquittal or conviction, are a bar to the prosecution in the other for the same offence.

IV. The power to prescribe by general laws the manner in which the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of each state shall be proved, and the effect they shall have in other states, is referred to this class by the authors of "The Federalist." It is an evident and valuable improvement on the provision relating to the same subject in the Articles of Confederation, of which the meaning was so indeterminate as to render it of little practical importance. The power, as it now stands, has been found, as was intended, to be a convenient instrument of justice, and particularly beneficial on the borders of contiguous states, where persons and effects liable to judicial process may be suddenly and secretly withdrawn to a foreign jurisdiction.

The clause in the Constitution which vests this power in Congress, previously declares that "full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state." And the act passed by Congress in execution of this power, prescribes the manner of authenticating such acts, records, and proceedings, and declares that, when so authenticated, they" shall have such faith and credit given to them in every court within the United States, as they have by law or usage in the courts of the state from whence they are taken."*

* Laws U. S., 1790, ch. 38.