Government went into effect was that of August 7, 1789, providing "for
the establishment and support of light-houses, beacons, buoys, and
public piers." Under this act the expenses for the maintenance of
all such erections then in existence were to be paid by the Federal
Government and provision was made for the cession of jurisdiction over
them by the respective States to the United States. In every case since
before a light-house could be built a previous cession of jurisdiction
has been required. This practice doubtless originated from that clause
of the Constitution authorizing Congress "to exercise exclusive
legislation ... over all places purchased by the consent of the
legislature of the State in which the same shall be, for the erection of
forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other _needful buildings_."
Among these "_needful buildings_" light-houses must in fact have been
included.
The bare statement of these facts is sufficient to prove that no analogy
exists between the power to erect a light-house as a "needful building"
and that to deepen the channel of a river.
In what I have said I do not mean to intimate a doubt of the power of
Congress to construct such internal improvements as may be essentially
necessary for defense and protection against the invasion of a foreign
enemy. The power to declare war and, the obligation to protect each
State against invasion clearly cover such cases. It will scarcely be
claimed, however, that the improvement of the St. Clair River is within
this category. This river is the boundary line between the United States
and the British Province of Upper Canada. Any improvement of its
navigation, therefore, which we could make for purposes of war would
equally inure to the benefit of Great Britain, the only enemy which
could possibly confront us in that quarter. War would be a sad calamity
for both nations, but should it ever, unhappily, exist, the battles will
not be fought on the St. Clair River or on the lakes with which it
communicates.