The daily union., 1846-04-30

Congress- Why require i, 10 re,.;n nronsyry
when no earthly advantage would result from 4,
and when II rs most snxioas 70 sell il, In order 10
pay It's debtsl Such limitation would seem 10 be
premium upon dishonesty. You would prevent
the Stale from doing what 10 right, and What il
wishes to do, by the penalty Of not receiving your
proportion Of your just expenditures, rendered just
by the enhanced value OF your property II she ef-
feet the SALE which is relieve her, Asd pay her
creditors do noi sec either the justice the pol
iey of such alimi,alion, and trust the amendment
wsii not prevail.
explanation. He commended that the latitude OF CON
strueon given To the CLAUSE in the constitution quo
ted by the senator from Michigan Mr.. CAssl was
infinitely more dangerous than the doctrine upon
which heretofore The system of internal improve
ments had been advocated. He denied that the IN
crease in the wealth and resources OF the West had
been the result Of governnsns expenditures. indl-
sidual industry and enterpriss had achieved the u
umphs which they had witnessed in the West. He
insisted that the bill was nothing more nor less than
a revival Of that system of internal improvements
advocated with such pertinscity some years since,
and sought to be engrafted on the country. IL was
then the great leading measure Of political party,
who were ready to stake their existence ON it
that was TO say, tho distribution Of the pro-
ceeds Of the public lands amongst all the States.
Al first, he believed, il was pretended that
the appropriations were 10 be confined TO the
objects designated in this very ball. But public
opinion had declared against that system; and yet il
was now attempted TO revive it--conkning it, how
ever, to those States in which the public domain
was located. II the law TO regulate the public do
main authorized the construction OF roads and Gu
mails, then he insisted IL authorized the claim former
y sst up IN all its extent, urged by those who
Ieontendsd the doeisins to which he had Allude.
There was, indeed, moro show Of propriety in the
doctrine formerly set up than in the partial section.
al aystrm n xUhirh fhis bill xgas a.
would 60 into the thing at all he would go into it in
the broadcast sense. As TO the argument based on
enhancing the value the public lands, he regarded
Il as Of little weight. He was willing 10 reduce the
price Of the public lands. In that way the benefit
would be general. But the bill was local and sec.
tional. Geatlemen had talked great deal about n
liberal policy and all that He was opposed to the
bill on the very ground that il was beral, because
Il was partial and unjust
Mr.. BREESE rose to advocate the bill He had
intended TO offer some extended remarks, but the
senator from Michigan tMr. CAssl had oceuped
most OF the grounds which he had Intended to take
Some considerations, however, that gentleman had
omitted, and he (Mr. b. would endesvor to place
them before the Senate. He would first advert To
the principle OF justice involved in the case IL WAS
the duty OF Congress TO act in spirit of impartiay
towards all the Sstes. So far as grants of this kind
were concerned, they had never been regarded as
asslmllated to internal improvements. They had
landSi which had been ceded to the United States
for the purpose Of being disposed Of by Congress
IN the manner which might be considered most ad-
yantageous. The constitutional question had never
been raised 80 far as he knew and the proprety of
the grant had been tested by expediency alone. The
hrst State which had received grant of public lands
was Ohio. That State contained within its borders
thrty.fye millions Of Of the public domain Of
which Congress had granted TO il 1lS0 1872 acres
Indiana was possessed Of twenty-three millions of
acres of which it had received grant of COS 4O4
acres. With regard to the State Of Michigan, she
had received only 100000 acres, although possess
ing upwards Of 38,000,0 900 acres The grants pro-
posed by the bill amounted to 992, 900 acres in a
less than that received by Indiana, although il had
a less area than Michigan. IL the limits of the
States then afforded basis for these grants and ii
was proper that they should, because they marked
the interest which the United States had in the lands
the State of Michigan was entitled to nearly q
900 900 acres. On the principle OF fair and impair
tia justice therefore, the State Of Michigan was en-
titled to much larger grant than that contemplated
by the bill now under consideration. He had re-
gretted to hear objections urged against the bill by
senator's from the old States, which had long since
received ample benefits from grants of the public
lands. On the termination of the revolution, Con-
gfess declared that, by that event. the States had be-
s& ~ Rd .as sssn s"aGsd ss sf ,s ao a
and seminaries Of learning; and yet now the new
States were obliged to come TO Congress and ask
even the right of way before they entered on the
Of railroad or canal. Not so with
the old States-they were entering unfettered, so
far as that was concerned. They had used the
public domain as trey pleased, and it did appear 10
him very ungenerous, that from them, any obec-
tons should be urged against grams to the new
States. Sef-interest should have prevented such
objections The old States were indirectly benefit
ed by the Improvement Of the new States-not di-
recty benefited indeed, but the new States became
producers for the old so that the general veal was
promoted by these grants II seemed to him that no
constitutional objection against the grants could be
The United States stood in the charac-
er of proprietor of the public lands and if they had
rgh to make dona tions ofthis kind in that char
,cter he would AK the senator from Connecticut by
what constitutional authority did the U. States own
hese landsl Certainiy if the ownership were con-
,titutiona therghtto dispose of them was consti-
utona 1t was for the United States to determine
whether the value Of their public lands would be en-
ranced by road in the direction specified in the
dill; and if So they had an unquestionabe right to
make donation of a portion of the public domain
or the purpose of completing that road. That was
he very principle recognised and acted upon in the
Congress Of 1920 The very preamble of the act
vowed the intention Of Congress- and that was, to
make the public lands more valuable and it was
worthy of remark that the money for the survey of
he road was paid out of the public treasury there
~ eStaDlSnlnS, III the most conclusive manner, the
principle, that in order to enhance the value of these
ands, as held in trust by the government for the
States, the moneys Of the public treasury might be
lsed for the purpose of survey. As far back as
I796, Congress granted three square miles of the
public land to citizen of Kentucky for the survey
If the line of public road. That was the object,
If all the grants which had been made to Ohio, In
Llama, and Illinosthe enhancement of the value of
he public lands For these grants the United States
lad already received upwards Of sixty millions of
Ioars. Was ii TO be supposed that, if not made
ccessible, these lands could ever have been made
aluabe and contributed 80 essentially to the pay
nent OF the national debt! He would not dwell on
he vast increase in The population and wealth of the
ountry which had arisen from the policy Of Con-
,ress in relation to the public lands. From all
hese important considerations he was in favor of
he bill. ..t.
Mr.. WESTCOTT followed in support Of the
,ill. He averred that government on the face of
he earth had acted SO meanly and niggardIy as had
he United States with respect to the public domain
Spain-despoic Spain-when in possession of Lou
siana and Florida, made liberal donations and
,rants on condition Of improvement; these grants
we're not made to her subjects alone but also to