seizure and condemnation of the property, if
necessary; to the punishment of offenders for injuries to the roads and
canals; to the establishment and enforcement of tolls, etc. It must be
a complete right to the extent above stated or it will be of no avail.
That right does not exist.

The reasons which operate in favor of the right of exclusive legislation
in forts, dockyards, etc., do not apply to any other places. The safety
of such works and of the cities which they are intended to defend, and
even of whole communities, may sometimes depend on it. If spies are
admitted within them in time of war, they might communicate intelligence
to the enemy which might be fatal. All nations surround such works
with high walls and keep their gates shut. Even here, however, three
important conditions are indispensable to such exclusive legislation:
First, the ground must be requisite for and be applied to those
purposes; second, it must be purchased; third, it must be purchased by
the consent of the State in which it may be. When we find that so much
care has been taken to protect the sovereignty of the States over the
territory within their respective limits, admitting that of the United
States over such small portions and for such special and important
purposes only, the conclusion is irresistible not only that the power
necessary for internal improvements has not been granted, but that it
has been clearly prohibited.

I come next to the right to regulate commerce, the third source from
whence the right to make internal improvements is claimed. It is
expressed in the following words: "Congress shall have power to regulate
commerce with foreign nations and among the several States and with the
Indian tribes." The reasoning applicable to the preceding claims is
equally so to this. The mischief complained of was that this power could
not be exercised with advantage by the individual States, and the object
was to transfer it to the United States. The sense in which the power
was understood and exercised by the States was doubtless that in which
it was transferred to the United States. The policy was the same
as to three branches of this grant, and it is scarcely possible to
separate the two first from each other in any view which may be taken
of the subject. The last, relating to the Indian tribes, is of a
nature distinct from the others for reasons too well known to require
explanation. Commerce between independent powers or commu