The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1851-03-08
Tho bounty Land Bill.

The bounty Land Bill.
Towards the closing hour of the Senate OF
Monday the Bounty Land bill, as amended il
that body, was called up--the question being
on its final passage. Mr.. WALKER, of Wis
consin, and Mr.. JEFFERSON DAVIS, of Missis
sippi, availed themselves of that hour to all
their vocabularies little at the expense of the
public interests and those of the poor soldier
Mr.. WALKER had satisfied the country and the
Senate of his opposition to the bill, and knew
that very large majority of the Senate was ir
its favor. Both Mr.. WALKER and Mr.. DAvI.
knew that any remarks at the hour at which
they spoke would be fatal to the bill but they
would not permit the Senate to take final vote
upon it without the usual exhortations. Mr.
WALKER had taken lesson evidently from
Mr.. DAVIS, in his course on the River and
Harbor bill, and was determined to apply it te
immediate use. In consequence of the speeches
of these gentlemen in opposition, the bill, which
passed the Senate by a vote of 81 to 10, was
lost for the want of time between the two
Houses.
The main object of the bill was to give a
legislative Interpretation to the Bounty Land
law of the last session, so far as touched the as
signabilty of the land warrants issued under it.
In this feature, it was substantially declaratory
of the Intention of the legislature in that act.
So far as the sense of the two Houses of Con-
gress goes, the bill as it stands is as dis
tinctly declaratory act, on the assignability
provision, as if it had been enrolled and signed
by the PRESIDENT. That provision passed the
House by a two-thirds vote at an early period
of the session. 1t passed the Senate by vote
of three to one on the yeas and nays. Here we
have the judgment of the two Houses of Con-
gress on the construction of law of its own
enactment; and though it varies from the con-
struction that has been put upon it by the De-
partment Of the Interior, we apprehend that it
is perfectly competent for that Department to
review its opinion and adapt it to what we now
know to have been the intention of Congress.
We quote from the circular of the Depart
ment, issued on the Sd of October, 1850, 20
much as relates to the point under considera-
ton:
"The policy of this law, in all its provisions, il
to discourage speculation in the claims of soldiers
The act provides that all Sales mortgages letters
Of attorney, or other instruments Of writing go
ing to affect the title claim to any warrant
hereinbefore provided for, made or executed prior
to the issue, shall be null and void to all intents
and purposes whatsoever; nor shall such ccrtifi-
cate or warrant, or the land obtained thereby, be
{ in anywise affected by, charged with, or sub.
ject to the payment of any debt or claim incur.
red by such officer soldier prior to the issuing
: of the patent .t
"In his judgment, the issue contemplated in the
body Of the above recited clause of the law il the
issue Of the patent. Consequently all sales trans-
: fers, assignments, and membranes of soldiers
land claims made before the emanation of the pat
ents, void and will be disrsgarded by the Gov
eminent. Spectators are, therefore, admonished
that they can acquire rights by purchase which
will be recognised by this Department"
II is obvious that the tissue" contemplated
in the clause of the law cited, in the strictest
construction, may apply as well to the "war
rant" as to the ''patent." Two-thrds of the
members of the House, and three-fourth of the
members of the Senate, have said that they in
tended it to apply to the warrant, and not to the
patent. This is the effect of their judgment as
embodied in the bill that was talked to death
by Mr.. WALKER and Mr.. DAVIS To us it
seems that the Interpretation thus expressed by
Congress is entitled to as much consideration
as if it had not failed by accident to become a
law.
We are well aware that this Interpretation
would very much augment the labors of the
Department, already exceedingly onerous; but
we know also that the ability of the Secretary
of the Interior to despatch the business Of his
Department is only equalled by his solicitude to
despatch it in atch manner rs will be salts
factory to the people.
In these speculations we give our own views
merely; and we have no reason to believe tina,
the subject has been presented to the Depart
ment in the light in which it has presented
itself to our own mind. How much force there
may be in the idea that the incomplete action
of Congress is tantamount TO a legislative ex-
position of the original act, we cannot undertake
to say. We have not critically examined the
language of the bill and the act it may be that
its peculiar phraseology excludes the idea that the
bill is ,nerpretative Of the act. II this is not the
case, and the bill were designed to be, as it
would seem, in effect, an explanatory act, we
cannot imagine any conclusive reason against
giving it this effect, although it failed, from
accident, TO become a law. The purpose Of
Congress, in regard to it, is Just as well known
as if it had regularly passed through all its
stages.