The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1850-07-03

4 / a4 r M
Now, sir, with these remarks surrender the question
into the hands OF those who desirous OF continuing
this discussion regret that have been compelled e
occupy much OF the time OF the Senate. Indeed,
should not have said word upon the amendment OF the
senator from Louisiana If he, the OF his speech
ns
directed against ihe Bill, and for which was response
be having written and first brought before the Senate
To-day the senator t to renew the assault and Of
course was compelled TO reply to the new matters
brought into the debate. aow take leave Of the SUBJ
1 ject
Mr. WEBSTER shall occupy but very brief time,
hope. in the remarks which shall make ia reply to the
honorable member from Louisiana, rather BY way Of an
Icussion OF the subject The question really be-
tween us, as substantial question, ~ this If there be
any viz: whether the assent or agreement or compact
OF California is necessary in order to to the United
States the property OF the public ands public domain
now belonging to the United States and lying within the
proposed boundaries OF California That is the question
Is necessary that something further be done on The part
OF California to make the title OF the United States,
and their possession and enjoyment To- and of the public
lands! The honorable gentleman holds the affirmative
OF that proposition, and with proper Differences hold the
negative And stand upon The history Of the country,
from the period OF the admission Of the first State where
benefit oi the United Sates-l mean Ohio-and that was
in tine year 1903 The honorable member has said and
showed that though in the act admitting Ohio there
condition inserted, as il is here, that the public lands
shall be taxed, there is stipulation by Ohio that
the primary disposal OF the soil shall not be neriered
with and that, either from the consideration that withou,
could not be nterfered with by the Sate from the
fact that proper provision applicable to the whole Of
the Norhwesern Territory, had been already inserted in
the ordinance OF 1857 care not which way il be taken
What to say is this that from the first establish
ment Of States in this Union over territory possessed BY
States had more or less public land il has not been
garded as part Of the public law Of America that the
States. BY merely being created States by any mpca
ton arising from their sovereignty, or otherwise. have
obtained, could obtain, any right whatever the pub
property Of the United States within their limits Such
understand. has been the whole history OF the country
and such was. precisely the decision of the Supreme
Court in the case referred 70 BY myself yesterday. The
honorable member from Louisiana is kind enough to
forensic FORM we were now before court to settle this
question question oflawhe is kind enough and fair
enough 70 admit that the decision would be against him.
what stated was that il in another forum the
authority quoted by the distinguished senator would
carry with greater weight than would be entitled to
Mr. WEBSTER Let me ask why should that author
ity, il quoted to-day in the Supreme Court have any
greater respect OF weight an attached to i than i quoted
that this is political question II Just the question
which has been decided in the referred to- II is no
question OF expedency, no question OF wisdom or folly.
Of prudence or mprudence in matters Of political con-
cern. Il is just exactly question of public law. II
turns OF the effect OF the treaty with Spain OF 1885, upon
the provisions OF the constitution and the acts of Con-
gress admitting Alabama into the Union. That is judi
cia question emphatcay aqueson OF high public law
and Is Just exactly the same question here to-day tina.
decide here If dispute arises about it, il 60 back
before the same tribunal, to be there again adiudged Il
is. therefore, question of political expediency,
have said and no question OF what is wise or ;nwise
but question oil constitutional law, and that question
has been decided by the highest tribunal in this govern
ment And il has been decided, as should have said
yesterday, and perhaps did say, upon any ground o
conflict between the sovereign power in this govern.
ment and the - sovereign power in a State govern
ment Not al all The court rejected that ground The
court proceeded upon the idea that the local sovereignty
necessarily had control over all lands lying within ts
limits except so far il had parted with that control to
individuals, and except far the United States, by
virtue OF the constitutional power of Congress. retained
control over the public domain lying within such Stale
that ssae hs nseu domain Som 6e
Why then the useful domain may nure to Individuals as
well as TO governments; and the gentleman will remem
Der that said the very thing yesterday, in just
many terms But, them the gentleman seems to alarm us
by the danger OF this construction. He says il would
able this government to grasp all the lands lying within
think the grasp of the gentleman's imagination in this
respect Is Tar wider than any possible grasp OF urisdc
lion by this government He must take along with the
general proposition the proper limitation and that is, that
the United States held these public lands within State
only for sale and settlement other proper disposal
The language of all our historyot the cessons, the
dnance the constitution, and all the laws-is in accord
with this idea The United States held the lands
not TO cultivate not TO lease, but simply to sell or dis
pose OF They protect the lands till sold or disposed OF
and there their authority ends; and every acre, when
Sold comes under the proper dominion OF the local sov-
ereignty.
The honorable member thinks did him some injus-
tice in omittng TO notice what contained in his
amendment in respect TO the mines certainly did not
intend any injustice or any omission. But ifstruck me
that the question Just the regard the
in regard 10 the ordinary lands which the United States
obtained from Mexico by the treaty. What is true OF
one must be tue OF the other: Whatever the gov
enment right Mexico. either to the lands mines
passes TO the government OF the United States Whatever
right In lands mines, had passed from the govern
men oil Mexico into private ownership remains in such
ownership, exactly as II the sovereignty bad been
changed. Now, il is OF sort OF consequence to this
the laws OF Mexico whether derived from Spain, or
established by her own sovereignty, after she had been
separated IRON Spain So far private rights were
vested in lands mines, they will remain vested aid
everything that still adhered TO the sovereignty of Mex
leo has passe 10 the United States, be disposed of
the United States shall think proper II there be public
domain in the mineral lands, the Unitel States will be
entitled TO hold them and to dispose of them and II indi
vduals eniiiledlo hold any part OF them, they will
members amendment proposes that California shalt not
obstruc impede any control which the United States
may wish 10 exercise over the mining region Need we
take bond from California that she will not interpose
her power to obstruct the constitution and laws OF the
United Statesi Anything done TO be done. or omit
ted to be done by California neither enlarge d.
mlnish the power OF the United States the lands in
California Nothing is clearer general rule than
that the constitutional powers OF Congress more be
enlarged by the assent OF States than they be dmn
shed by their dissent.
The honorable member alludes again to what he con.
sders possible danger, OF great magnitude TO the rest OF
the Union, from the large boundaries assigned to Can
fornia he thinks there may be within these bound
one, two, three millions OF people al some