The gentleman, proceeding in his argument, had assumed premises which nobody would admit, and then, with an air of great triumph, he drew conclusions which even his own premises would not support. He takes for granted that this government, with all its mail, military, and commercial powers, has no more right to make a road to carry these powers into effect, through a State, than any individual possessing none of these powers would have. Thus, having assumed what was utterly inadmissible, he triumphantly inquires whether an individual, having obtained leave to make a road through another's land, could put up gates and exact toll? The gentleman says, surely not. But he said, surely yes, unless expressly prohibited by the contract. Suppose, by permission, I build a mill, said Mr. S., upon that gentleman's estate, and construct a bridge and turnpike road to get to it, have not I as much right to demand toll at the bridge as at the mill? Most undoubtedly; so that the gentleman's premises and his conclusions were alike fallacious and unsound. This position had been taken by both the gentlemen from Virginia (Mr. Barbour and Mr. Archer), to whom he would make the same reply. A most extraordinary argument had been advanced against military roads: the public enemy may get possession of them in war!! Was it possible that an American statesman could, at this time of day, urge such an argument? It might be addressed to a set of timid savages, secure in the midst of the wilderness. The enemy get possession of our roads, and therefore not make them! Such cowardly arguments would deprive us of every possible means of defence. The enemy, it might be said with equal propriety, may get our ships, our forts, our cannon, our soldiers, and therefore we ought not to provide them. What would the brave freemen of this country say to the men who would deny them roads to travel on, lest the enemy might take them from us in war? They would reply, with Spartan magnanimity, "Let them come and take them." * * *