The Arkansas advocate., 1834-01-17

iced. as for the deyofedness in which they originated, We should hesitate before wede- lmolish them.
 gus there are other principles asserted in the bill which would have lmpelledme fo withhold my signature, had not seen Tn l ;f i violation of the compacts by which the United States acquired title to | large por- i,o ,,i ;ts. ...s,.;e ,...ss,....;e lands. ge-assegt the lnr,ncipie contained III the bill authorizing subscription to the stock of the Maysyilie, Washington, Paris, and Lexington Turn f;A. f;;iAst,. Read Company, from which ] was compelled to withhold my consent, for req sons contanedm in my message of the 2Ith May, 1880, to the House of Representa- lives. The leading principle then asserted was, that Congress possesses no constltu- tionaf power to appropriate any part of tine monies of the United States, for objects of local character, within the States. That principle, l cannot be mistakenin supposlng, 1 has received the unequivecai sanction ef l the American people, and all subsequent reflection has but satisfied me more tho roughly, that the interests of our people, and the purity of ouf Government, II not It's ies;;;sttss,.e<e, deeend or. its observance. fe tpubiic lands iire the common property of the United States, and the monies arising fromtheirsales,a are partofthepnblicfsyenue 1 This bill proposes to raise from and appro- priate portion of the public revenue to certain States providing expressly ,thatitshall fssbe applsed to obiecis Of sgafef7seI aanproue- ln,enf or educotioa svahin those sfates,' and then proceeds to appropriate the bal atce to all the States, with the declaration, That it shail be applied .sio such purposes as Ithe Iesisiatarss oj tie sasd States shdlt
 deem proper.n The former appropriation is expressly ffor internal improvements or
 education, without qualification as to the kind of improvements, and therefore in ex- press violation of the principle maintained lin my objection to the turnpike road bill, labove referred to. The latter appropria-
 ton is more broad, and gyes the money to be applied 10 any local purpose whatsoever. It viii not be denied that, under the pFoyi-
 sions of the bill.a portion ef the moneymight
 have been applied to making the very read te
 which the bill of 1880 had reference, and
 must of course come within the scope of, the same principle. If the money of the
 United States cannot be applied to local
 purposes fsrougb is ote9 agents, as htfse
 can t be permitted to be thus expended
 tlsfoash the agency q fke istate sore1A=
 ments.
 IL has been supposed fhat wiff all tho reductions in our revenue which could be speedily effected by Congress without nJu- Try to.the substantial interests of the conn ] try, there might be for some years 10 come a surplus of monies in the Treasury, and
 that there was, in principle, no objection tor returning them to the people by whom they rl are paid. As the literal accomplishment of such an asohiect is obviously inpractica- 1bie, It was thought admissible, as the near lest approximation to il. 10 hand them over to the State Governments, the more ilnme-
 diate representatives of the people, to be by them applied to the benefit of those to
 whom they properly belonged. The prin- EcipIe and the object was, to return to the
 people an unavoidable surplus of revenue
 which might have been paid by them under
 a system which could not at once be aban- doned; but even this resource, which at one ltime seemed to be almost the only alterna- tive to save the General Government from Egrasping unlimited power over internal iln-
 provements, was suggested with doubts of its constitutionality.
 But this bill assumes a new principle-- q Its object is not to return to the people an
 unavoidable surplus of revenue paid in by
 them, but to create surplus fer distrilu- ltion among the States. 1t seizes the entire proceeds of one source of revenue and sets them apart as a surplus, making 1t necessary
 fo raise the monies for, supporting the Gov
 ernment and meeting the general charges, from ether sources. 1t even throws the en-
 tire land system upon the customs for its support. and makes the public lands a per-
 petual charge upon the Treasury. It does not return to the people monies accidental
 ly runavoidably paid by them to the Co.,
 gerasnens, by which they are not wanted;
 but compels the people to pay monies into the Treasury for the mere purpose of cre- ating surplus for distribution to their
 State Governments. If this principle be once admitted, it is not difficult 10 perceive
 10 what consequences it may lead. AL
 ready this bill, by throwing the land system
 on the revenues from imports for support,
 virtually distributes among the States a part
 of those revenues. The proportion may
 be increased, from time to time, without
 any departure from the principle now assert \ ed, until the State Gov erlmenis shall de-