granted powers?  All the granted powers, it is confidently affirmed, may be effectually executed without the aid of such an incident.  “A power, to be incidental, must not be exercised for ends which make it a principal or substantive power, independent of the principal power to which it is an incident.”  It is not enough that it may be regarded by Congress as convenient or that its exercise would advance the public weal.  It must be necessary and proper to the execution of the principal expressed power to which it is an incident, and without which such principal power can not be carried into effect.  The whole frame of the Federal Constitution proves that the Government which it creates was intended to be one of limited and specified powers.  A construction of the Constitution so broad as that by which the power in question is defended tends imperceptibly to a consolidation of power in a Government intended by its framers to be thus limited in its authority.  “The obvious tendency and inevitable result of a consolidation of the States into one sovereignty would be to transform the republican system of the United States into a monarchy.”  To guard against the assumption of all powers which encroach upon the reserved sovereignty of the States, and which consequently tend to consolidation, is the duty of all the true friends of our political system.  That the power in question is not properly an incident to any of the granted powers I am fully satisfied; but if there were doubts on this subject, experience has demonstrated the wisdom of the rule that all the functionaries of the Federal Government should abstain from the exercise of all questionable or doubtful powers.  If an enlargement of the powers of the Federal Government should be deemed proper, it is safer and wiser to appeal to the States and the people in the mode prescribed by the Constitution for the grant desired than to assume its exercise without an amendment of the Constitution.  If Congress does not possess the general power to construct works of internal improvement within the States, or to appropriate money from the Treasury for that purpose, what is there to exempt some, at least, of the objects of appropriation included in this bill from the operation of the general rule?  This bill assumes the existence of the power, and in some of its provisions asserts the principle that Congress may exercise it as fully as though the appropriations which it proposes were applicable to the construction of roads and canals.  If there be a distinction in principle, it is not perceived, and should be clearly defined.  Some of the objects of appropriation contained in this bill are local in their character, and lie within the limits of a single State; and though in the language of the bill they are called harbors, they are not connected with foreign commerce, nor are they places of refuge or shelter for our Navy or commercial marine on the ocean or lake shores.  To call the mouth