The circumstances which relate to the unsuccessful application made to the general government on the part of the state of New-York, for that assistance in the construction of the contemplated canals which the message of Mr. Jefferson, and the report of Mr. Gallatin, had led them to believe would be readily accorded, are will known. In the Memoir of Mr. Colden, in the Documents published by Mr. Haines, and in the Canal Documents published under the direction of the state, they are so fully detailed, that no further notice of them is called for in this place. But the attempt of the general government, to impose a tax upon the trade of the canal, and to compel those who conducted it to take custom-house licenses for that purpose, ought not to be forgotten.

The observations of Governor Clinton on this subject, contained in his message of 1825, and the remarks of General Tallmadge in his able and eloquent speech, delivered in the House of Assembly on the 8^th of November, 1824, expose, in the most ample manner, the injustice of the measure proposed by congress.

The following are the remarks of Governor Clinton on this subject.

I cannot pass over, in silence, the attempt which has been recently made to bring the boats navigating our canals, within the operation of the statutes for regulating the coasting trade of the United States, by requiring from such boats enrolment and license, and the payment of tonnage duties. The canals are the property of the state, are within the jurisdiction of the state, have been constructed by the state, and can be destroyed by the state. They have been made at its expense, after the general government had refused all participation and assistance. It cannot well be perceived how the regulation of commerce "with foreign nations, and among the several states, or with the Indian tribes," can authorise an interference with vessels prosecuting an inland trade, through artificial channels. The coasting trade is entirely distinct from a trade through our canals, which no state in the union, nor the general government itself, has a right to enjoy, without our consent. The consequences of such assumptions would be, if carried into effect, to annihilate our revenue arising from tolls, to produce the most oppressive measures, to destroy the whole system of internal improvements, and to prostrate the authority of the state governments.

A just exposition of the laws of the United States, cannot authorise their application to such cases. But if a different interpretation should prevail, then it becomes a very serious question indeed, whether the state can enforce its laws imposing tolls. The supreme court of the United States has solemnly adjudged, that a coasting license from a collector is a grant of the right of navigation. If so, and that right being derived from a law of congress, it will be contended that it cannot be prohibited nor controlled by any state law; the right to be complete, must be enjoyed without restraint. The state cannot demand a toll, as the price of enjoyment of such a right, if it has not the power to prohibit such enjoyment altogether.

It may be further remarked, that the power to regulate commerce, among the states, under which the act regulating the coasting trade was passed, is held by that high tribunal, to be exclusively in congress – If so, and if that act, or any other act, which congress may pass, under that power, can be applied to the canals, it would follow, as a consequence, that our laws imposing tolls, are void from the beginning. The state has no power to adopt them; and in this view of the subject, it would seem to be immaterial whether and license be taken out under the act of congress.

The supreme court has also declared, that the power to regulate commerce includes a power to regulate navigation, as one means of carrying on commerce. The same remark may be made with equal force, concerning any kind of transportation, whether by land or water, the power to regulate commerce applying to the one as well as to the other. If congress can declare, that a boat passing between different parts of the same district, within the same state, shall take a license, why can it not direct that a waggon shall take one, under similar circumstances? When we shall have arrived at this point, we shall begin to have some adequate notion of the extent to which this claim may be carried.

I shall say no more on this subject at this time. I will not entertain a doubt but that the national government will command the abandonment of a claim so unfounded and pernicious; and I am persuaded that it has been preferred with due reflection, and without instructions from superior authority. But if this course shall not be pursued, it will then be your duty to take that stand which the rights and safety of the people imperiously demand.

----------------------------------------

Transcribed from the original text and html prepared by Bill Carr, last updated 5/23/99.