The southern press. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1850-1852, 1850-06-29


habits, if she cannot truly and absolutely dispose
ofiti And how could she have the full and abso
lutte domain OF place where she has not the com.
maHd. Another's sovereignty, and the rights il
Icomprehends, must deprive her of the free dis
posal Of that place. Add To this the eminent
domain, which constitutes part Of the sove-
reignty, and you will the better perceive the in
innate conneNion existing between the domain
and the sovereignty of the nation. And accord
ingly what is called the high domain, which is
nothing but the domain Of the body OF the nation
or of the sovereign who represents it, is every
where considered us inseparable from the sove
rognty. The usefui domain, or the domain con
fined to the rights that may belong to an indi
vidual in the State, nmy be separated from th,
sovereignty, and nothing prevents the possibility
of its belonging to nation in places that are MOI
under her jurisdiction. Thus many sovereigns
have iefs and other possessions in the territories
Of another prince; in these cases they possess
them in the manner of private individuals.
"The sovereignty, united to the domain, es,ab'
fishes the jurisdiction Of the nation in her terrific,
res, or the country that belongs to her. II is her
province, or tina of her sovereign TO exercise JUS
lice in all the places under her jurisdiction--to
take cognizance Of the crimes committed. and .he
differences that arise in the country"
Now, that is precisely my view. The Govern
men possesses, in all respects, its title in the same
manner us individuals retain theirs. The munich
/,
alienation, &C., of portions Of the SOIL belongs to
the new State government, undoubtedly, within
her limits. That is unquestionabe. But then there
is nothing to prevent any other government from
possessing the dominum utiie III any portion of it
nothing at all. Another government may pos
sess it, precisely as an individual may. The
United States may still hold land in California rs
well us any individual citizen of the United States.
The only difference liz this, that the Government
of the United States holds land only for one great
purpose-that is, to SELL Ii holds it in trust, to
sell it for the benefit of the Government; and so
soon as sold, it comes under the municipal SOW
eregn; it partakes of the qualities of other land,
and is subject to all the rules prescribed by the
legal sovereignty. The only exception is this:
that in regard to lands of the United States, that
is established by law which, in regard to ndvid-
uals, might be established by contract; that is,
that during certain period those lands, the prop
crty Of the United States, should be far exempt
ed from the municipal sovereignty under which
they are placed as not to be subject TO taxation;
and afterwards that the lands held by non-residenis
cannot be taxed more highly than those Of resi-
dents. With this exception, which it is just as
competent for indn duals to make by contract
it is for the Congress of the United States I'M
pose by law, the mode in which lands are held i'm
State is precisely the same regards individuals
and the United States. They are exactly the
same.
Sir, every part Of our American history abounds
with instances Of this sort within the sphere of
her own Government, and without the sphere of
hor own Government. ] think have understood
that, with all her domestic sovereignty, the State
Of New Jersey never possessed any public domain
or authority over the uncultivnted lands within
her limits. The title was, believe, in the posses
sion Of Il board Of propretors, who sold it out
The State government had no control over them.
So it happened in great portion Of New York.
Massachusetts, claimed title to great part of the
western section OF the State Of New York. She
sold it to Mr. Morris, he sold il to R--and Phelps;
and they sold it to the Holland Land Company
understand that one-hird of the State of New
York was owned by foreign company. That
was never supposed to be an infringement of the
right Of the State of New York. The same thing
has Happened in other countries.
Now the question Of SOY eregnty does not arise.
The history Of titles in this respect and tn c
history Of the laws and usases of the country in
this particular, have been fully detailed by the
honorable member from Illinois, (Mr. DouGLAs,)
and shall not go over the track he has trodden.
He has shown all the precedents. Taken together,
they are all one way. There may be exceptions
here and there; but the general idea has been that
thcecreation of Stnte, the admission of State,
had no effect Mt all upon the property of the Uni
ted States lying within its limits. 1t il hardly
worth while for me in this atmosphere to argue
he point ut length. 1t has been decided and set
led by the highest judicial authority of the coun-
ry-plany decided and unsVliyocsly. The
case will be found in the Sd okfIoward. The
judgment Of the court in that casei was pronoun-
ced by the gentleman to whom have referred as
having given an opinion the other way when he
was member of Congress. The opinion, in the
year 1915, in a case of very great importance, wns
this
[The honorable Senator here read the extract,
Of which VIC could not obtain copy.l
Therefore, sir, while the doctrine Of the SUI
prcme Court thus enumerated stands, the public
authority Of the United States over the lands w.
ing within the new States stands the law OF
Congress. Now, the argument OF the honorable
Senator from Louisiana Is, that there being con-
ditions the assent Of the other side, or COM
pact entered into. by the ether side, is ndspcnsr-
BILE. The opinion of the Supreme Court precisely
and exactly overruIes all that; and the honorable
member will see that il it did so happen that the
daauShtsman Of this bill had left open those re.
servations, it being understood so and so, and
had not fallen into the use Of the word "condi
tons, +" the whole ground of argument Of the hon
| orable member would have failed at once. Its
enough to say that the Supreme Court has dec
ded directly and distinctly the very point, hat the
authority Of the United States does so far extend
ms, by force Of itself, p,yprio rigore, to exempt
lands from taxation when new State is created
over territory in which the lands lie. Then, sir,
what is the result Of this bill What has become
of all this danger to the public InnGs' Compac:s
make it no better; it tx better without them. Con-
sent makes it no better; that is the language Of
tie Cours--ther unanimous language. There
fore think the honorable gentleman from Iii
nois (Mr. DoUGLAs) entirely right, when he pro-
posed the law which he did propose in the act foi
the admission Of California, in omittng all refer
ence TO that act.
| The third section Of this bill was added to sat
isfy doubts. Exceptions were taken. and it wa.
thought that this section would satisfy and re-
move oil lection. II was introduced for TINT lau
dable purpose; and the bill stands, according Il
the decisions to which have referred, just wei
without that section as with it. What is there tc
overturn the law Of nations, the history of ON
government What is there in this case to show
that California has any idea of becoming the
owner Of the public lands' Why, upon the very
face Of her constitution, she acknowledges the
right Of the United States; she goes on IN the
ninth article Of the constitution to provide how
those lands shall be disposed of and taken care Of
by the Legislature, which may be granted to her
by the United States. Is not that an admission
that the public lands in that territory belong to til,
United States' We must so with this case,
think, according to ourown Judgment. We mus
regard substance and not form. If anything b,
established by law--if anything be settled by III,
experience of the government, i'm the course q