united to accomplish it at their joint expense?  Certainly not, for the same reason.  It could not be done, therefore, but by the general government.  The same may be said of the large inland undertakings, except that, in them, government, instead of bearing the whole expense, co-operates with others who bear a part.  The other consideration is, that the United States have the means.  They enjoy the revenues derived from commerce, and the States have no abundant and easy sources of public income.  The custom-houses fill the general treasury, while the States have scanty resources, except by resort to heavy direct taxes.

Under this view of things, I thought it necessary to settle, at least for myself, some definite notions with respect to the powers of the government in regard to internal affairs.  It may not savor too much of self-commendation to remark, that, with this object, I considered the Constitution, its judicial construction, its contemporaneous exposition, and the whole history of the legislation of Congress under it; and I arrived at the conclusion, that government had power to accomplish sundry objects, or aid in their accomplishment, which are now commonly spoken of as INTERNAL IMPROVEMENTS.  That conclusion, Sir, may have been right, or it may have been wrong.  I am not about to argue the grounds of it at large.  I say only, that it was adopted and acted on even so early as in 1816.  Yes, Mr. President, I made up my opinion, and determined on my intended course of political conduct, on these subjects, in the Fourteenth Congress, in 1816.  And now, Mr. President, I have further to say, that I made up these opinions, and entered on this course of political conduct, Teucro duce.[2] Yes, Sir, I pursued in all this a South Carolina track on the doctrines of internal improvement.  South Carolina, as she was then represented in the other house, set forth in 1816 under a fresh and leading breeze, and I was among the followers.  But if my leader sees new lights and turns a sharp corner, unless I see new lights also, I keep straight on in the same path.  I repeat, that leading gentlemen from South Carolina were first and foremost in behalf of the doctrines of internal improvements, when those doctrines came first to be considered and acted upon in Congress.  The debate on the bank question, on the tariff of 1816, and on the direct tax, will show who was who, and what was what, at that time.

The tariff of 1816, (one of the plain cases of oppression and usurpation, from which, if the government does not recede, individual States may justly secede from the government,) is, Sir, in truth, a South Carolina tariff, supported by South Carolina votes.  But for those votes, it could not have passed in the form in which it did pass; whereas, if it had depended on Massachusetts votes, it would have been lost.  Does not the honorable gentleman well know all this?  There are certainly those who do, full well, know it all.  I do not say this to reproach South Carolina.