New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1851-03-19

re.sfirs his decision of last year, declaring the
| Bounty Land Warrants issued under the act o.
the First Session Of the last Congress, unassigns
| bic. All right.
DEPARTMENT OF TIE INTERIOR, I
WASHINGTON, March IS, ls5l.i
SIR: I herewith return all the papers connect
ed with the appeal, prayed by Mr.. George B. Sar-
gent in the case Of Fielder Walker, from your
! decision in regard to the assgnablity Of Land
| Warrants under the act Of Sept. 2s, 1850.
| have, without hesitation, affirmed your de-
csion. Shortly after the passage of the act, had
occasion to examine with great care, the question
| Of the assignability OF warrants issued under it
then decided that they were not assignabe, and
that decision, with the reasons on which It was
founded, was published in the newspapers. The
correctness of that judgment has not, believe,
been seriously questionedi but on the contrary,
have been assured, by one or more OF the commit
tee who prepared the bill, that it was in exact
conformity with their intentions. | have seen no
reason therefore, to change the opinion which
then deliberately formed. Indeed, do not I'M
derstand that am cow asked to reverse my judg-
ment because it was wrong The application ad-
dressed to me is to change the lGto in view Of she
expression of & wish BY Congress, in an informal
manner, that il should be SO changed as to render
warrants assignabe.
This application rests on singular misconcep-
ton of the principles of law and of the functions
The law is admitted to be in accordance with
my decision. Recognizingit to be So the House
of Representatives passed a joint resolution
making warrants assgnable. The Senate con.
cured in the resolution, with amendments and
returned it to the House. where it was lost from
want of time to act on the amendments.
1t is not pretended that Congress has changed
the law but it is said it indicated purpose to do
So and, having failed TO carry that purpose into
I IN, alxr
called on to assume the province Of the Legisla'
ture, and to do what Congress would probably
have done, if it had carried its intentions into ell
feet. No argument can be necessary to prove
that have no power to DO any such thing. II l
were to attempt it my action would be yold and
Justly expose me to the imputation Of gross vlo-
lation of duty.
If the Executive Departments should under
take to look hey ound the acts of Congress, aud to
speculate as to what were the probable wishes OF
the majority of the two Houses, where would be
the limits to their discretion and what would be-
come Of the division of the powers OF the Govern
ment, which is the great 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 Congress favorable to the change why might
not the Secretary Of the Treasury pay TO Mr.
Richie the indemnity which he sought or the
President direct the disbursement OF the large
sums specified in the River and Harbor Bill, to
made improvements contemplated by that bill;
66fBoFh- HotseS were lF4Ry bpoTRt that majortles
The appellant seems to forget that There issome'
thing more than the assent of the two Houses ne
cessary to the validity of law, even when for.
must be given to it and although, in TINS 'psfso:
ular case, doubt not that the President would
have cheerfully approved the act, if it had been
passedby Congress, IcannOtforbearfrom adverting
70 the fact that the principle cOntended for by the
appellant would abrogate practically the whole
power of the Executive in this important particu-
ar. am, very respectfully, your obt serv't.
(Signed) ALEX II. II. STUART, Secretary.
}. BUTTERFIELD, Fac. Com Genl Land Office.