Mr. Monroe’s veto message on this occasion was sustained in the House by a vote of 68 to 72, and the bill consequently failed. The vote of the House, however, is to be considered as a concurrence in Mr. Monroe’s objection that Congress cannot establish toll-gates and collect tolls, and not as an affirmance of the general views which he expressed on the taxing power. But upon Mr. Buchanan this message produced a strong effect. It was the first time that his mind had been brought sharply to the consideration of the questions in what mode “Internal Improvements,” as they were called, can be effected by the General Government, and consequently he began to perceive the dividing line between the Federal and the State powers. Although he had voted for the bill imposing tolls upon the Cumberland Road, influenced probably by the desire to diminish its injurious competition with the Pennsylvania road, he took occasion at the next session to retract the error of which he had been convinced by Mr. Monroe’s message. When a bill was introduced at the next session, making an appropriation for the preservation and repair of the Cumberland Road, he moved as an amendment that the United States retrocede the road to the three States through which it passed, on condition that they would keep it in repair and collect no more tolls than such as would be necessary for that purpose. Being now convinced that Congress could not impose the tolls, he thought the only alternative was to cede the road to the States, since it could not be supported from the Federal Treasury without producing inequality and injustice. His amendment was rejected and the bill was passed.[11] A precedent was thus established for the support of the road by Congress. The subject will again recur in 1829 and 1836. In Mr. Buchanan’s speech in 1829 will be found the expression of his more matured constitutional views on the whole subject of Internal Improvements.[12] The 17th Congress, which commenced its session in December, 1822, and terminated in March, 1823, witnessed a protracted discussion on the doctrine of “protection,” which extended into the 18th Congress. The tariff of 1823–4 was the second measure of that kind after the war. At that period the prevalent doctrine in the New England States was Anti-protectionist. The city of Boston was represented by Mr. Benjamin Gorham, a lawyer of remarkable ability, the immediate predecessor of Mr. Webster. His speech against the new tariff was replied to by Mr. Buchanan; and if the reply is a fair indication of the speech against which it was directed, Mr. Gorham’s language must have been vehement.[13] Mr. Buchanan said: