These things, taken together, show that the question of internal improvements is now more distinctly made—­has become more intense—­than at any former period.  The veto message and the Baltimore resolution I understand to be, in substance, the same thing; the latter being the more general statement, of which the former is the amplification the bill of particulars.  While I know there are many Democrats, on this floor and elsewhere, who disapprove that message, I understand that all who voted for General Cass will thereafter be counted as having approved it, as having indorsed all its doctrines.

I suppose all, or nearly all, the Democrats will vote for him.  Many of them will do so not because they like his position on this question, but because they prefer him, being wrong on this, to another whom they consider farther wrong on other questions.  In this way the internal improvement Democrats are to be, by a sort of forced consent, carried over and arrayed against themselves on this measure of policy.  General Cass, once elected, will not trouble himself to make a constitutional argument, or perhaps any argument at all, when he shall veto a river or harbor bill; he will consider it a sufficient answer to all Democratic murmurs to point to Mr. Polk’s message, and to the Democratic platform.  This being the case, the question of improvements is verging to a final crisis; and the friends of this policy must now battle, and battle manfully, or surrender all.  In this view, humble as I am, I wish to review, and contest as well as I may, the general positions of this veto message.  When I say general positions, I mean to exclude from consideration so much as relates to the present embarrassed state of the treasury in consequence of the Mexican War.

Those general positions are:  that internal improvements ought not to be made by the General Government—­First.  Because they would overwhelm the treasury Second.  Because, while their burdens would be general, their benefits would be local and partial, involving an obnoxious inequality; and Third.  Because they would be unconstitutional.  Fourth.  Because the States may do enough by the levy and collection of tonnage duties; or if not—­Fifth.  That the Constitution may be amended.  “Do nothing at all, lest you do something wrong,” is the sum of these positions is the sum of this message.  And this, with the exception of what is said about constitutionality, applying as forcibly to what is said about making improvements by State authority as by the national authority; so that we must abandon the improvements of the country altogether, by any and every authority, or we must resist and repudiate the doctrines of this message.  Let us attempt the latter.