than in commerce, navigation, or agriculture.” Though this was to be regretted, it was "more than counterpoised" by other "incidental political advantages."

"It produced an interest strictly American, -as much so as agriculture, in which it had the decided advantage of commerce or navigation. . . . Again, it is calculated to bind together more closely our widelyspread republic. It will greatly increase our mutual dependence and intercourse; and will, as a necessary consequence, excite an increased attention to internal improvements, a subject every way so intimately connected with the ultimate attainment of national strength and the perfection of our political institutions."

He regarded the fact that it would "make the parts adhere more closely; that it would form a new and most powerful cement, and outweigh any political objections that might be urged against the system."

In a speech on February 4, 1817, on a bill to set aside the bank dividends and bonus as a permanent fund for the construction of roads and canals, Calhoun, for the first time, entered upon an extended argument on the constitutional question with regard to internal improvements. The objection that it is necessary to secure the previous assent of the States, within the limits of which the internal improvements

are to be made, he declared to be not "worth the discussion, because the good sense of the States may be relied on. They will, in all cases, readily yield their assent." Also as to the power of Congress he is so explicit that, when he afterwards positively denied it, his opponents need not have troubled themselves about an argument of their own; so far as he was concerned it would have sufficed to read some extracts from this speech : —

"It is mainly urged that the Congress can only apply the public money in execution of the enumerated powers. I am no advocate for refined arguments on the Constitution. The instrument was not intended as a thesis for the logician to exercise his ingenuity on. [If he had but followed the example of the Persian king, and charged his body servant to repeat to him these two sentences every morning!] It ought to be construed with plain good sense; and what can be more express than the Constitution on this point?

...

If the framers had intended to limit the use of the money to the powers afterwards enumerated and defined, nothing could have been more easy than to have expressed it plainly. . . . But suppose the Constitution to be silent, why should we be confined in the application of moneys to the enumerated powers? There is nothing in the reason of the thing, that I. can perceive, why it should be so restricted; and the habitual and uniform practice of the government coincides with my opinion. In reply to this uni

form course of legislation, I expect it will be said that our Constitution is founded on positive and written principles, and not on precedents. I do not deny the position; but I have introduced these instances to prove the uniform sense of Congress and the country (for they have not been objected to) as to our powers; and surely they furnish better evidence of the true interpretation of the Constitution than the most refined and subtle arguments. Let it not be argued that the construction for which I contend gives a dangerous extent to the powers of Congress. In this point of view I conceive it to be more safe than the opposite. By giving a reasonable extent to the money power, it exempts us from the necessity of giving a strained and forced construction to the other enumerated powers."

Thus he was not only the champion of the constitutionality of internal improvements, but he boldly avowed latitudinarian principles with regard to the general construction of the Constitution. It was a rather remarkable coincidence that this was the last great speech which he delivered as a member of the House of Representatives. He was called to act on another stage, where less, or no, opportunity was offered to develop his views on these subjects before the whole people, but there is no proof lacking that he adhered to them for some time longer.

CHAPTER III.

SECRETARY OF WAR.

ALTHOUGH Calhoun, in a speech delivered on January 17, 1817, had deprecated the feeling which made "the very best talents of the House, men of the most aspiring character, anxious to fill the departments or foreign missions," he himself, less than two months afterwards, readily accepted a place in Mr. Monroe's cabinet as Secretary of War. The duties of his office stood in no direct relation to the economical policy of the federal government, but, as he was anxious to see his views adopted, he had no difficulty in laying them again before Congress. A resolution of the House of Representatives, of April 4, 1818, had called on him for "a plan for the application of such means as are within the power of Congress, for the purpose of opening and constructing such roads and canals as may deserve and require the aid of government, with a view to military operations in time of war." His report of January 14, 1819, began by laying down the sound and broad principle that,

"a judicious system of roads and canals, constructed for the convenience of commerce and the transportation of the mail only, without any reference to military operations, is itself among the most efficient means for the more complete defence of the United States.' Without adverting to the fact that the roads and canals which such a system would require are, with few exceptions, precisely those which would be required for the operation of war, such a system, by consolidating our Union [!], and increasing our wealth and fiscal capacity, would add greatly to our resources in war."

He then traced in general outlines a vast plan of roads and canals, concluding his argument with the following significant remarks:

"Many of the roads and canals which have been suggested are no doubt of the first importance to the commerce, the manufactures, the agriculture, and political prosperity of the country, but are not, for that reason, less useful or necessary for military purposes. It is, in fact, one of the great advantages of our country, enjoying so many others, that whether we regard its internal improvements in relation to military, civil, or political purposes, very nearly the same system, in all its parts, is required. If those roads or canals had been pointed out which are necessary for military purposes, the list would have been small indeed."

In a report of December 3, 1824, "on the condition of the military establishment," etc.,