The Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1837-1845, 1842-07-23
uEMARKs OF Mn. R. NJ r. HUNTER,
or VIRGINIA,
ON THE TEMPORARY TARIFF BILL.
DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
JULY A, 1912.


come now TO the other objection taken To the Ve-
TO- Ii is said that the pubic lands belong 70 tue
S ates Ii So Mr.. Speaker, my Trend from MARY
land Mr. johnson need be under no fears that tner'
will nol he lnre lhan three Wings, las was SAID by
Mr. Caruthers) 10 sustain bis proposition fof assuI
inv The 81 l. debts Those who MAINTAIN ms doc
tiine are bound in consistency to z" iaiiher, anu
give TO The States all ih. money which this Govern
pient has EVER derived fiom the pubic lands II this
dish 81 ION exists the latitude VIII be gwen 10
tb Sc " ho slate the account; and VIII almost ven
tore to prophesy that the Wings viii soon open',
maintain scheme for sumlng the Stale deo's,
based upon this very idea But how Is u ascertaiheu
II pray 10 know that these lands belong 10 tne
State,2 The most valuable of those which remain
10 US were acquired under the treaties by winch
Louisiana and Florida were coded TO tue United
5 a,es These were purchased with money IRON the
Federal Treasury. how, then, did the States &C
ouire II lie 10 theul Thy were purchased 1t is said
by money derived from the lands coded To US by the
States and ceded for the PARTICULAR Use OF all The States
OF tins Confederacy. Ii this were So II might give
them title TO the money but how c. uld II vest III
them the properly of the lands which were purchased
These purchased (ke the other property OF The
United States) OF the Federal revenue, collected
Jointly IRON customs and lands. If the lands belong
TO the States why not The ships, the arms, or the
other public stores? Are they 10 select the most pro-
fitable of the investments OF this Government and
they entitled, too, the profits OF the speculation
But were any lands ever coded 10 this Government
pause now To recaptulate the arguments OF Others
upon the various deeds OF ceSsloD by which 1t has
been ably proved that these deeds c. ntemP aed no
such object l shall only refer to singe cons'dera
rion winch demonstrates, To my satisacuon that such
their purpose. 1t expressly stipulated IN
the Virginia deed of cession the most important u
them all that 1t should be- :" common iund for
The and benefit OF such of the United States as
have become, or shall become members of the Con-
federation, or Federal alliance, OF the said States,
Virginia included according to their usual respec-
i've proportions in the general charge and exp ndi-
ture." And this substantially provided for IN the
others. 81 long we collect our revenue from Gus
t. 5, there Is mode by which We can fulfil this
conIition exactly, exc l by using the iand revenue
Tor the Federal expenses, 10 dnInIsh the gene
raj taxes by this amount Each Stale will then bt
benefited IN The precise proportion ut It's share OF the
general charge and expenditure" If We undertake.
To distribute the money itself amongst the States
there mode by which we can ascertain the share
ofeach State, according 10 this rule; tor we have
means Of determining, within reasonable degree OF
celtalny the propu tIon OF the customs paid by the
pat GUAR ales. There is diversity OF opinion
TO operation OF THIS tax and certain Is, that the
present Distribution according to Federal members,
does respect the rule fixed by the deeds of on,
acco ding to any theory AS to the manner In which
this tax paid. The authors of these cessions musI
have ioreseen thu, difficulty; and they contemplated
the of these funds by the General Government
as the common properly of the Sia'es, according To
their respective proportions OF the general charge and
expenditure. Evrn under the old system OF quotas,
Wien precise distribution could he made, Ell her by
LIE of the land revenue by the General Govern
meai or by an actual payment to the States, they
must have contemplated the first mode, as that saved
ihem no the expense OF double system OF collec-
ton AID disbursement. But these cessions, whether
mad be ore alter the adoption OF the Federal Con
sttuuon TO be Construed being governed by II
provisions. The first overrul by 1t the las
be n ID OF
tons. Ii Is To this siru,nent that We must look to
the horty, If IT exists, besow these lands upon
the States. Fhe unlimited peser of dsposing OF th'
public properly has been rfed upon aiordlng thu
authoniy-a construction which gives this Govern
mcnl the right to bestow upon item the proceeds o
the sale of any and every species OF public property
OF indtt d, of any money no matter how DERIVED
II Is st invested property and then reconyerted +,
It's original shape. But | h We not now the time /,
enter into all Of he arguments upon this question .
power 1t sufhces to say that 1t is the old and tn
great question upon which the Federal and Republ'
can parties originally divided. There exists POI e
in Congress 10 lay indefinite amount. Th
Federal party contended that lhey had the power t
appropriate this money to any purpose not forbidden
by the Constitution The Republicans on the othe
hand, maintained that Congress could only appIu
pirate this money TO carry out certain specified pow er
actually granted In the Constitution. We all remem
Der the arguments that were used, and how the con
test decided The same question is now revive
In relation to the pub ic lands Because there is a
un nIted power of disposition, is contended that tn
money coming from hem may be appropriated to an
purpose not 'ctually forbidden by the Constitution
On the other hand, we n,intan that they can Onl
be disposed of to carry out the granted powers In II
Constitution. The same arguments which decide
the former contest, ought to settle the present contr
verSy. If there be any power in Congress to max
donations TO the States, 1t must be expressly granite
In the Constitution. Ii there be no such grant, "
cannot appropriate to them the revenue either fro
lands customs.
Blu, Mr.. Speaker an objection has been made
this veto, Which entirely independent Of the meri
oflhe bl itself 1t is said that this is measu
of expedency, according TO the Presidents view;
and iha it is improper for him 10 refuse his assent
any measure of that character; whilst Others, mo
daring sl have questioned the prupriey of the pow
er Itself Not content with hurting the most unspa
ing Remuneration at the President, they have laid vi
holy hands upon the CONSTITUTIONS, aud thrs aten
tear ton it the provision which has SO often stood
tween them and taer ends Disappointed at the
cep ion which these measures have met with in eve
direction, they now turn abou, like the fat less
nant to fire the house, because they have notice
quit. Ny colleague has said that this the fir
Instance In which President has refused his sign
ture upon mere question of expedency; and seer
to question his moral right to veto bill for raisiI
revenue, which can only originate b, re, and ov
which, he seems to think this House exercises
culiar jurisdiction If this House meant to sci
such claim to jurisdiction, 1t ought not to ha
tacked to the bill clause appropratng Il
lands to the States. Ii Was to the appropriation,
not to the provisions, that the President o
jected. But the historical recorctions of my &C
league have been shown to be Inaccurate d
general course of his reasoning was unsound.
has already been referred to instances of such ref
sails in The administrations of General Washingt,
and Mr.. Ma iIson. The first refused to sign b
for reducing the standing army; and the other wit
held his signature fro bank charter after expires
ly waving all constitution objections the me
sure. But Mr.. Speaker it has been well answers
TO such objections that the Constitution gives Il
President lhe power to negative all bills, ma
ter what may be the nature of the question
which hey Involve; and there can be no impr
prely in the judIcious of any of the powe
granted by that instrument If the veto power ca
be justified at all, | should ike to know if the san
which justify Its ia OF constitution
al difficulties do not also require its exercise upc