SAT閱讀材料:The Maysville Road veto

　　The Maysville Road veto occurred on May 27, 1830 when President Andrew Jackson vetoed a bill which would allow the Federal government to purchase stock in the Maysville, Washington, Paris, and Lexington Turnpike Road Company, which had been organized to construct a road linking Lexington and the Ohio River, the entirety of which would be in the state of Kentucky. Its advocates regarded it as a part of the national Cumberland Road system. Congress passed a bill in 1830 providing federal funds to complete the project. Jackson vetoed the bill on the grounds that federal funding of intrastate projects of this nature was unconstitutional. He declared that such bills violated the principle that the government shouldnt be an economic affair. Jackson also pointed out that funding for these kinds of projects interfered with the paying off of the national debt.

　　Proponents of internal improvements, such as the development of roads and bridges, argued that the federal government had an obligation to harmonize the nations diverse, and often conflicting, sectional interests into an American System. Jacksons decision was heavily influenced by his Vice President Martin Van Buren. Some authors have described the motives behind the veto decision as personal, rather than political. The veto has been attributed to a personal grudge against Henry Clay, as well as to preserve the trade monopoly of the Erie Canal, in the case of Van Buren.

　　Debate in Congress

　　Supporters of the bill insisted on the projects national significance. This particular project was intended to be a part of a much larger interstate system extending from Zanesville, Ohio to Florence, Alabama. If the highway as a whole was of national significance, they argued, surely the individual sections must be, as well. They looked to the Supreme Court decision handed down six years before in Gibbons v Ogden, in which the court confirmed the power to regulate commerce among the states including those portions of the journey which lay within one state or another. Additionally, the road connected the interior of Kentucky to the Ohio river, and therefore served as the main artery for the transportation of goods. Kentucky Representative Robert Letcher made this argument regarding the roads connection to the rest of the nation:

　　The road designed to be improved is intended to intersect the great national road in the State of Ohio. It connects itself also on each side with the Ohio River. These two connexions most certainly and justly entitle it to the appellation of a national work.

　　Moreover, the federal government had provided funding for other intrastate projects when they benefited the rest of the nation. As Representative Coleman stated:

　　But gentlemen say, every inch of the Maysville road is in the State of Kentucky. How can it be national? I answer, every inch of the Delaware Canal, sixteen miles in length, is in the State of New Jersey; and every inch of the Louisville Canal is in one county; nay, I believe in one city. How can they be national? Yet, Congress have subscribed for stock in both of them.

　　These arguments were all intended to illustrate the roads overwhelming national significance. Opponents responded that this line of argument would establish every road a national road; there would be no limit to federal power.

　　The Maysville Road veto occurred on May 27, 1830 when President Andrew Jackson vetoed a bill which would allow the Federal government to purchase stock in the Maysville, Washington, Paris, and Lexington Turnpike Road Company, which had been organized to construct a road linking Lexington and the Ohio River, the entirety of which would be in the state of Kentucky. Its advocates regarded it as a part of the national Cumberland Road system. Congress passed a bill in 1830 providing federal funds to complete the project. Jackson vetoed the bill on the grounds that federal funding of intrastate projects of this nature was unconstitutional. He declared that such bills violated the principle that the government shouldnt be an economic affair. Jackson also pointed out that funding for these kinds of projects interfered with the paying off of the national debt.

　　Proponents of internal improvements, such as the development of roads and bridges, argued that the federal government had an obligation to harmonize the nations diverse, and often conflicting, sectional interests into an American System. Jacksons decision was heavily influenced by his Vice President Martin Van Buren. Some authors have described the motives behind the veto decision as personal, rather than political. The veto has been attributed to a personal grudge against Henry Clay, as well as to preserve the trade monopoly of the Erie Canal, in the case of Van Buren.

　　Debate in Congress

　　Supporters of the bill insisted on the projects national significance. This particular project was intended to be a part of a much larger interstate system extending from Zanesville, Ohio to Florence, Alabama. If the highway as a whole was of national significance, they argued, surely the individual sections must be, as well. They looked to the Supreme Court decision handed down six years before in Gibbons v Ogden, in which the court confirmed the power to regulate commerce among the states including those portions of the journey which lay within one state or another. Additionally, the road connected the interior of Kentucky to the Ohio river, and therefore served as the main artery for the transportation of goods. Kentucky Representative Robert Letcher made this argument regarding the roads connection to the rest of the nation:

　　The road designed to be improved is intended to intersect the great national road in the State of Ohio. It connects itself also on each side with the Ohio River. These two connexions most certainly and justly entitle it to the appellation of a national work.

　　Moreover, the federal government had provided funding for other intrastate projects when they benefited the rest of the nation. As Representative Coleman stated:

　　But gentlemen say, every inch of the Maysville road is in the State of Kentucky. How can it be national? I answer, every inch of the Delaware Canal, sixteen miles in length, is in the State of New Jersey; and every inch of the Louisville Canal is in one county; nay, I believe in one city. How can they be national? Yet, Congress have subscribed for stock in both of them.

　　These arguments were all intended to illustrate the roads overwhelming national significance. Opponents responded that this line of argument would establish every road a national road; there would be no limit to federal power.