though confronted by the combined opposition of the world. A compromise of principle he was a stranger to. Nothing disheartened, therefore, by the magnitude of the obstacles opposed to his progress in advocating his favorite measures, by those high in authority, he seemed to gather fresh energy from every new one that he encountered. In March, 1818, a resolution was submitted to the house, declaring that congress had power to construct military post-roads and canals, and also to appropriate money for that object. The opposition to this presented a formidable array of strength, and brought forward every objection that political ingenuity could devise. Mr. Clay did not deem it advisable to consume the time of the house in examining in detail any except those denominated _constitutional_. His whole aim, therefore, was to prove that the power alleged in the resolution, was derivable from the constitution; and this he accomplished in the most convincing manner. In construing this instrument, he observed the same rules which governed his action in relation to the bank bill of 1816. He maintained that every power, which _appeared necessary and proper_, to secure the lawful exercise of constitutional rights, _was fairly impliable_, and that this _necessity and propriety_ must be determined by the discretion of those who exercised it, ‘under all the responsibility of a solemn oath,’ and the knowledge that they were the subjects of those laws that they passed, and that they were amenable to the _people_, who held in reserve the right to resist tyrannic usurpation. Mr. Clay argued that the power to _establish_ post-roads, expressly specified in the constitution, involved the power to _construct_ them. This position he illustrated with the clearness of demonstration, by referring to that clause which gives congress the power of making war, and employing the resources of the country in prosecuting it. He declared that, from the same provision, the power of transporting those means was derived by implication; and that therefore, to secure such transportation, congress might legally construct military roads, &c. His adversaries, compelled to yield before his powerful reasoning, fell back, and intrenched themselves behind the _concession_ that peculiar emergencies might justify the exercise of the power in question. From this he drove them, by proving that this _concession contained the admission_ that the constitution conveyed ‘the power; and,’ said Mr. Clay, ‘we may safely appeal to the judgment of the candid and enlightened to decide between the wisdom of these two constructions, of which one requires you to wait for the exercise of your power until the arrival of an emergency, which may not allow you to exert it, and the other, without denying the power if you can exercise it during the emergency, claims the right of providing beforehand against the emergency.’ They finally fortified themselves behind the position, that it was not requisite