cend. Hence, Congress may enact fifty laws, the President may sign them, and, after all, the United States Court would declare them all unconstitutional and illegal. The necessity of this is obvious; a government could not have been formed otherwise.

This government was formed, as all who are conversant with its history know, from and by separate, sovereign, and independent States; they first confederated to carry on the War of the Revolution, or Independence, but they did not consolidate a government, after their Independence. They, the States, entered into a compact with each other for a government, or agent to transact for the States their business, which they, the United States, expressly and clearly defined, limited, and declared, that their agent should have no power to transcend the limits of its instructions, except only when so ordered by a vote of two thirds of the States; the States, each and all, retaining their independent sovereignty, with power to enact their own municipal laws, and manage their own internal affairs. A very important reason for this is, that the different States possessed and occupied a vast territory of country, of different climates, soils, and products, consequently with different interests. so that the enactment of a law by Congress, while it might benefit one State or section, would be ruinous to others. Therefore, the government was made the creature of, and subject to the States and the people, and not the people and the States subjects of the government, except so far as the delegated powers specified, and no farther; no more than is the estate of a testator bound by the acts of his executor, which are not authorized by the written testament. Any deviations from this strictly literal construction of the powers of this government, have led to confusion and strife; often approaching to an overthrow of the whole fabric. Such has been the case of all termed great measures brought before, or acted on by Congress. There is the slavery question, for one. The slave States having never surrendered their control over this subject, will not permit Congress to act upon it, and justly consider any attempt so to do as an unwarrantable interference with their rights, as also a violation of the compact.

Slavery is not alone. Any action by Congress on any subject that might tax one State or section, to be applied to any object for the benefit of any other section or State, would be viewed in the same light. The tariff on imports has been the subject of warm controversy, and justly so, because the great and controlling interest of the United States is agriculture, which does not require, and cannot be benefited by Congressional acts; whereas, manufacturers desire and urge a prohibition, even, on articles competing with their products, which is clearly unjust to the agriculturists, because they are the great consumers of both foreign and domestic fabrics, and a heavy duty must enhance their cost; an unequal and unjust tax upon one interest for the benefit of another, which is submitted to, in the case of the tariff only, under the false plea that "Congress shall have power to levy taxes for the necessary expenses of the government," and could never be carried through Congress, except by bargain and sale-a corrupt legislation.

Such would be the case with any legislation on the subject of a railroad to the Pacific. The slave States would claim that the road should be located on what is termed slave territory, in order that slavery might be extended to the Pacific; while the free States would claim that the road should be located on what is termed free soil, with a view to check the extension of slavery; the great aim and object of each to check the other, and keep up an equilibrium in the Legislature of the country, which must eventually overthrow all. Besides the strifes of these two great sections, each and every border State, from Texas to Lake Superior, would claim that the road should be commenced on its limits; therefore, no bill could ever be passed through Congress except by bargain and sale with each and all of these different interests. And could such a bill, enacted under such circumstances, be made available for such a work? I think not.

Even Mr. Buchanan does not pretend that Congress has the power to authorize such a work through any State, and no one will admit that Congress can have any control over its operation and management, through any State. Therefore, were Congress to act at all, it would only be through territories far beyond civilization-a barren wilderness-without timber, and no materials for such a work, and no means to reach them, thereby greatly enhancing the outlay for construction. Had my plan been adopted, the work could have been commenced on the western shore of Lake Michigan, where there was timber, materials, and easy communication with settlements; the lines to connect with it from the Atlantic, passing through but two States, could, from necessity. have been made tributary to its operation and management, from the Lake to the Pacific. Congress then had the power over it, and all the streams could have been bridged, so that an uninterrupted communication, from ocean to ocean, would have been had forever. A cargo of merchandise could have passed from the Atlantic to the Pacific without transhipment, and as the road from the Lake to the Pacific would have been free, except tolls necessary for operation and repairs, the charge for transit would have been so low, together with the great saving of time, that the commerce of Europe with Asia would have been forced over it; this is now all lost to the United States. Were Congress to authorize the construction of a road through territories, the connection with it, from either ocean, must be through States; on the Atlantic side, not less than four, each controlling the operation of the line through it, subject to the changes and whims of its Legislature, and to the levying of such tax on freight as would suit its wants, or authorize a company so to do; and the line would probably cross streams which could not be bridged, subjecting commerce and travel to transhipment, ferriage, delays, and heavy expenses, sure to defeat the great objects of the work, and the commerce of Europe with Asia would continue its present route around the Cape of Good Hope.

I have never believed that a railroad to the Pacific could ultimately benefit either Europe or the Atlantic slope of America, unless the commerce of Europe with Asia could be made to pass over it, leaving England, with her present manufacturing and commercial position and relations, and augmenting her power over both. The immense business which the commerce and intercourse between Europe and Asia would give to the road must, as a natural result, form a foundation for the employment of a densely populated belt from ocean to ocean, and, and as far as the soil and climate might suit, mostly an agricultural people.

This belt would take the surplus population from Europe, and make them producers of food to exchange for English manufactures on one side, and Asiatic productions on the other side, thus benefiting, to a vast extent, the populations of both Europe and Asia, by giving to each the means to consume more largely of the other's products. Now, if these great results cannot be attained, what benefit to England or to the United States even, can be looked for from a railroad to the Pacific? The mountain range, from Cape Horn to the Arctic Ocean, divides this continent and the world. The soils, climates, and products (except minerals), are precisely the same; therefore, exchanges can no sooner take place than with the waters which this vast shed conducts to the two oceans.

Then, what results may we look for from the completion of a railway to the Pacific which cannot force the commerce of Europe with Asia over it? We already see that population on the Atlantic slope has gone so far west, that the cost of transport to market is such as to leave but small return to the producers; hence we see the greater amount of emigration to the Pacific side is from the far Western States, and it is fair to conclude that population cannot extend much further on this side, and must leave a vast extent between the two oceans unoccupied, except, perhaps, by some exclusive sect like the Mormons. Now, is it not clear that a railroad to the Pacific, which cannot carry the commerce of Europe with Asia, cannot change this position? It is my opinion that it would not only verify these views, but would seal forever after the unalterable destiny of both England and the United States. A railroad that cannot take the commerce of Europe with Asia with it, ⚫would, beyond a doubt, facilitate travel and intercourse, and speedily build up on the Pacific slope a separate independent nation, drawing to it the capital, enterprise, and population of both Europe and the Atlantic slope, because, from the greater reward or return for each; with their own parallels from Cape Horn to the Arctic ocean to produce for and exchange with, and cod, whale, and other fisheries, extending from Oregon to Japan, more than fourfold of that of all the fisheries of the world besides, with Japan and China ready markets not only for the fish, but for all the products of the Pacific slope of America, in exchange for the fabrics and products of Japan, China, and for the tropical products of all Asia, would such a people, with such markets. look to the Atlantic slope or to Europe for exchanges? No, their exchanges must be with Japan, China, Australia, the many islands, and with all Asia; and English labor, capital, and enterprise, which now control the commerce of Asia, and with it the commerce of the world, must be transferred to the Pacific slope, when civilization and Christianity will have encircled the globe; but England, no longer mistress of the ocean, the commander of the commerce of the world, she must then be what the nations now are who at one time, in their turn, possessed and controlled the commerce of Asia.

When last in England (in 1851), I found many warm advocates for the construction of a railway over British territory. It was then, as now, my firm belief that this work cannot be accomplished through a wilderness so vast, except by a system of settlement and civilization to be connected with the work. I then feared that on a line so far north, the climate and lands would not be as well suited to settlement and culture as further south on territory of the United States. I have since examined the subject more thoroughly, and find a large extent of country on the British side well adapted to settlement and culture. At the Selkirk settlement, further north even than necessary for the line of the road, wheat, rye, barley, oats, potatoes, and even Indian corn, are cultivated to perfection, the yield large, and grain fine, and almost the entire line on this side would be a good grass country, and the Pacific side, for some parallels, is some 10° more mild. As to route, the British side is far more favorable for a road, with much lower grades. From Lake Superior to the Rocky mountain range is almost a level country, the ascent so gradual as to be almost imperceptible, and we find that near the 50th parallel the streams divide, running northeasterly and southeasterly, and north of the 45th parallel the mountains slope to the Arctic ocean, and nowhere north of 50° do they elevate their peaks 5,500 feet, with many depressions practicable for a railway. Here, then, would be the great highway, with its termini, Halifax and Puget Sound, the great depots for the commerce of Europe and Asia, the American continent and the world, under the management and control of one head. A cargo of merchandise might then pass from the Atlantic to the Pacific without transhipment or delay, and the actual distance from England to China some 2,000 miles less than any route likely to be fixed upon by the United States.

You speak of the Panama railway, and of the projected railway across Mexico; these are truly, great enterprises, but you are mistaken as to their results. They will certainly facilitate travel and intercourse with California, Oregon, and the Sandwich Islands, but not so with Australia, and the other islands, China and India, because the sailing distance between London and Australia, China, India, &c., is less around the Cape of Good Hope than via Panama or across Mexico, where heavy expenses and delays for two or more transhipments, transit across, &c., must be incurred. By taking a globe, and placing the end of a cord or tape at London and thence to the Cape de Verds, thence to the Cape of Good Hope, and thence to Christmas or St. Paul's Island, and to Australia, or from the Cape to Java or to China or any other point, then measure from London across Panama to Australia or to China, say Canton, and you will find the distance from Canton to London, via the Cape of Good Hope, some two thousand miles less than via Panama.

I made this explanation before the Royal Geographical Society in 1851, and said: "If the entire earth could be swept away, opening a strait of six hundred miles in width at Panama, so that the two oceans could unite and mingle in one, the commerce of the world could not be generally benefited by it." On examination, these views were sustained by high authorities, and what has been the result? The Panama Railway has been completed; has the commerce of Europe with Australia, with China, or with India, been carried over it? ing the outbreak in India has England sent troops or been in any way benefited by it? Has it in any way changed the position of the people of Europe or Asia, or in any degree given to each the means to consume more of the other's products? Can it ever do so? 7

VOL. III.-NO. III.

Dur

But

what must be its inevitable results? I answer, the hastening of the great changes conse quent upon the encircling of the globe with civilization and Christianity, and building upor the Pacific slope a nation which must control the commerce of all Asia, and be separate and distinct from the now United States and from England." Respectfully yours,

ASA WHITNEY.

2.-RAILROADS IN THE UNITED STATES, 1860.

THE following statistics are compiled from the annual report of the Railroad Journal, published in New-York: