1829 Andrew Jackson - Signaling the Maysville Road Veto of 1830

In Andrew Jackson's first State of the Union, he signaled his intentions to veto what would become known as the Maysville Road Act.   The Maysville Road act was one of the most controversial acts of its time and would authorize the purchase of $150,000 worth of stock in the Maysville, Washington, Paris, and Lexington Turnpike Company also known as the Cumberland Road.  The company had been organized to build a road between Lexington and Maysville along the Ohio River entirely within the state of Kentucky.   Jackson ultimately vetoed the Maysville Road Act on May 27th, 1830 claiming that it was unconstitutional, but this should have come as no surprise to Congress after the words that he spoke in December of 1829.   This post will explore Jackson's reason's for declaring the act to be unconstitutional. 

In his first State of the Union, President Jackson made it very clear that when appropriating funds for the purposes of internal improvement, he believed that it should be done in a way that would benefit all states, not just one such as Kentucky.  Jackson wrote that he heard the concerns of those citizens that considered intentions of the Maysville Road Act to be an "infraction of the Constitution", while others viewed it as impracticable.  Most of all, the nation felt that it was tearing apart Congress.  These must not have been encouraging words for the proponents of the Maysville Road act including the powerful Speaker of the House Henry Clay who presented it as part of his larger vision of economic nationalism known as the American System.  In 1829, Jackson delivered these words to the Congress in his written State of the Union Address:

"Considered in connection with the difficulties which have heretofore attended appropriations for purposes of internal improvement, and with those which this experience tells us will certainly arise when ever power over such subjects may be exercised by the Central Government, it is hoped that it may lead to the adoption of some plan which will reconcile the diversified interests of the States and strengthen the bonds which unite them. Every member of the Union, in peace and in war, will be benefited by the improvement of inland navigation and the construction of high ways in the several States. Let us, then, endeavor to attain this benefit in a mode which will be satisfactory to all. That hitherto adopted has by many of our fellow citizens been deprecated as an infraction of the Constitution, while by others it has been viewed as inexpedient. All feel that it has been employed at the expense of harmony in the legislative councils.
To avoid these evils it appears to me that the most safe, just, and federal disposition which could be made of the surplus revenue would be its apportionment among the several States according to their ratio of representation, and should this measure not be found warranted by the Constitution that it would be expedient to propose to the States an amendment authorizings it. I regard an appeal to the source of power in cases of real doubt, and where its exercise is deemed indispensable to the general welfare, as among the most sacred of all our obligations."

Just five months later, Jackson did indeed veto the Maysville Road Act on the grounds that he considered it unconstitutional.   Jackson wrote a very long and detailed message explaining his reasoning, and why he believed it to be unconstitutional.  Jackson's veto message dives deep into constitutional law and the interpretation of the enumerated powers granted to the federal government for internal improvements.   I will do my best to provide a summary of his arguments.

Jackson began his message with a note, that while in 1830 the federal government did not have the surplus funds to invest in such a project as the Maysville road, the time would soon come when the debt would be paid off, and the tariffs would bring in enough revenue to pay for projects such as this.  Because of this, he did not simply want to rely on reasons such as the lack of funds when vetoing the bill, but rather on his conviction that the act was unconstitutional.   Jackson then, repeated that many of "our fellow-citizens" considered the bill to be an "infraction of the Constitution" while others viewed it as inexpedient.  By repeating these words, it leaves no doubt that Jackson's words in the State of the Union address were no doubt directed at the Maysville Road Act.   Jackson also repeated, that the only just and proper way for the federal government to appropriate funds for internal improvements is to do it in such a way that funds would be distributed in a ration equal to that of each state's proportion of the population. 

Jackson, then began his dive into the constitutional authority of constructing or promoting internal improvements.  Jackson separated his concerns into two categories based upon who maintains jurisdiction of the roads or waterways.  First Jackson, raised concerns that it would be unconstitutional for the federal government to take full jurisdiction of the roads, canals within a state for the preservation and use of them. Second, Jackson suggested that the constitution did not Congress the power appropriate money from the National Treasury to aid in works that are being "undertaken by State authority".   Jackson accepted that the first question regarding federal jurisdiction is an open question but stated that in his opinion the federal government clearly does not have the power to fund projects that remain under the jurisdiction of a state.  Therefore, no bill which admits this could receive his official sanction.  Essentially, at this point it was game over for the Maysville Road Act, since the bill would have invested in a state-run project.   Nevertheless, President Jackson continued to provide a very scholarly and lengthy argument for his decision to veto the bill.

Jackson reviewed the previous 42 years of American history, expressing his belief that over these years each successive President and Congress had expanded the powers of appropriation and jurisdiction beyond that which was first recorded in 1798.   He promised not to detail each and every act but wanted to point out the most prominent acts starting with President Jefferson's purchase of Louisiana for a payment of $15,000,000 and the original appropriation of funds for the Cumberland road.  Both of these in Jackson's mind, expanded the powers beyond that was originally enumerated in the constitution.   In addition, no less than 23 laws were passed stretching every form of the constitution to appropriate upward of $2.5 million out of the National treasury in support of improving the Cumberland or National Road.  Everyone President from Jefferson to John Quincy Adams sanctioned these laws. Despite, these appropriations, there was no precedence for Congress to appropriate funds for projects that remained under the jurisdiction of a state.   In fact, the administration of James Madison provided a very strong opinion against this when he objected to a bill declaring that states could not confer the power to Congress to appropriate funds at their request even if it was for the common good or common defense.    Jackson interpreted this, as a concession that the right of Congress to appropriate funds "is not limited by the power to carry into effect the measure for which the money is asked."  In other words, the funds cannot be directed by a state, but must be at the sole discretion of Congress, and done for the good of all the states. 

President Monroe initially agreed with this in 1818 when he vetoed a bill in 1818 to appropriate funds to maintain the Cumberland Road. At the time, Monroe argued that Congress had no right to "expend money except in the performance of acts authorized by other specific grants of power".  What Monroe argued is that while Congress could fund the improvements that benefited the common good or supported the common defense, they did not have the power to take jurisdiction of any roads that crossed multiple states, nor did any one state have the authority to grant this power.  It could only be done through a constitutional amendment, yet by 1822 President Monroe opened the door to further expansions of power by arguing that for the public good, and for the defense of the nation such projects might be considered.   With this Jackson seemed to agree.  He argued that while the Constitution must be guarded with a "sleepless vigilance" against the expansion of "plainly defined power", to follow the letter of the law, rather than the "spirit of our institutions" could defeat "the objects of the Constitution itself.   In other words, sometimes for the common good of our nation, small infractions against our constitution could be allowed, but this was not one of those times. 

Therefore, regarding the Maysville Road Act, President Andrew Jackson was convinced that the state of Kentucky did not have the right to grant Congress the authority to appropriate funds for the building of the Maysville road, nor did Congress have the right to take jurisdiction of the road.  Jackson considered it to be a matter of "purely local character".  Jackson wrote that he was not able to "view it in any other light than as a measure of purely local character; or, if it can be considered national, that no further distinction between the appropriate duties of the General and State Governments need be attempted, for there can be no local interest that may not with equal propriety be denominated national. It has no connection with any established system of improvements; is exclusively within the limits of a State". It was a done deal and must be vetoed.

Jackson, though did not want to give the impression that now (in 1830) would be a good time to undertake such a project if only it was constitutional.  He explained that the debts stemming from the late war had not yet been paid off, and the budget surplus was not enough.  The key word is yet.  Jackson took this time to express his confidence that in a short period of just four years with himself at the helm the entire debt would be extinguished, and despite the diminishing revenue from the reduction of the duties on tea, coffee and cocoa,  the surplus funds would be there by the beginning of his second term.  This was certainly good news, but Jackson wanted to insure that the funds are spent responsibly and in a constitutional manner.  Like James Madison, President Andrew Jackson wanted a constitutional amendment to give Congress the enumerated powers to assume jurisdiction over the sovereignty of the states regarding the construction and maintenance of roads and canals as needed.  Without it, one Congress might claim the power exists and exercise it only to be denied by the next Congress.   This fluctuation would squash the success of future projects.  In addition, without the ability of the federal government to take jurisdiction across state lines, individual states would compete for the funding and regional differences would undermine the exercise of Congressional appropriation powers.   Like Jefferson, Madison and Monroe, Jackson did not try to limit the power of the Federal government directly, but rather he wanted to ensure that these powers were explicitly enumerated by the constitution.  Compared today, the federal government in 1830 was severely limited, and Jackson was trying to balance the object of the constitution, that is the welfare of the nation with it's limit on enumerated powers.

References

Presidency.ucsb.edu. (2018). Andrew Jackson: First Annual Message. [online] Available at: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29471 [Accessed 12 Oct. 2018].

Presidency.ucsb.edu. (2018). Andrew Jackson: Veto Message. [online] Available at: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=67036 [Accessed 17 Oct. 2018].