The Athens post. [volume] (Athens, Tenn.) 1848-1917, 1851-03-28
THE BOUNTY LAND LAW.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR.

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR. }
Washington. March Is, 1851.
SIR:-I herewith return all the pa
pers connected with the appeal, pray.
ed by Mr.. George B. Sargent in the
case of Fielder Walker. from your
decision in regard TO the assignabi.itv
Of land warrants under the act OF
September %. 1850.
p have, without hesitation, affirmed
your decision. Shortly after the pas.
sage of the act. had occasion 10 ex-
anime, with great care, the question
Of the assignabi|ity of warrants issued
under it. ! then decided that they
we're not assignab|e. and that decision,
with the reasons on which it was
founded. was published in the news.
papers. The correctness of that
judgment has not. believe. been seri.
ouslv questioned; but, on the contrary,
! have been assured, by o'e or more
of the committee who prepared the
bill. that it was in exact conformity
with their intentions. Ihavc seen no
reason. therefore, to change the opin.
ion which then deliberately formed.
Indeed. do not understand that | am
now asked to reverse my Judgment
because it was wrong. The appIica.
ton addressed to me is to change the
iaU. in view of the expression of n
wish by Congress. in an informal
manner. that it should be so changed
as to render warrants assignable.
The application rests on singular
misconception Of the principles of law
and of the functions of the ditfcrcn,
departments OF the Government.
The law is admitted to be in accol
dance with my decision. Recognising
1t to be so, the House Of Representa-
tivcs passed IL joint resolution. making
warrants assignable. The Senate con.
Cured in the resolution. with amend.
mcnts. and returned it to the House,
where it was lost from want of time
TO act on the amendments.
II is not pretended that Congress
has changed the law but. it is said, it
indicated a purpose to do so; and hav>
ing failed to carry that purpose into
effect. |. mere executive officer, am
graveIy called on to assume the pro.
vince Of the Legislature, and to do
what Congress would probably have
done, il it had carried its intentions
into effect. No argument can be ne.
ceSsary to prove that have no power
to do any such thing. IL | we're to
attempt it my action would be void.
and justly expose me to the lmputa'
ton of gross violation of duty.
If the Executive Departments
should undertake to look beyond the
acts of Congress. and to speculate as
what we're the probable wishes Of the
majority of the two Houses. where
would he the limits to their discretion,
and what would become Of the divis.
ion of the powers OF the Government
which is the grea, safeguard Of public
liberty and private right? II | were
to be at liberty. in this case. to change
the law. because there was known To
be majority in both houses of Con
gress favorable to the change. why
might not the Secretary Of the Treas
ury pny 10 Mr.. Richie the indemnity
which he sought, or the President
direct the disbursement Of the large
sums specified in tie River and Har.
Dor Bill, to make improvements con
tempIated by that bill; because it is
quite as well known that ma jorities
OF both houses were in favor OF those
measures!
The appellant seems to forget that
there is something more than the as.
sent of the two Houses necessary to
the validity of a law. even when for
malIy expressed. The sanction OF the
Presiden, must be given to it; and
although, in this particular case. !
doubt not that the President would
have cheerfulIy approved the act. il
it had been passed by Congress. |
cannot iorbcar from advertng to the
fact. that the principle contended for
by the appellant would anrogate prac-
ticnlIy the whole power Of the Exc.
cutive. in this important particular.
l am. very respectfully, your obcdi.
ent servant. (Signed
ALEX. H. H. STUART,
Secretary.