The southern press. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1850-1852, 1851-03-21

The SECRETARY OF THE INrEaIoR has addressed
the following letter to J. BurrERFiELD, Esq.,
Commissioner Of the General Land Office, giving
his FOR adhering to his former decision III
regard to the assignabty of land warrants:
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
WAsHINGroN, March Is, 1851.
| Sir: herewith return all the papers connected
with the appeal, prayed by Mr.. George B. Sar-
gent in the case Of Fielder Walker, from your
decision in regard TO the assignabi'iiy Of land
warrants under the act OF September %, 1850
| have, without hesitation, affirmed your decis-
ion. Shortly after the passage Of the act had
occasion 10 examine with great care the question
of the assignability of warrants under it. l then
decided that they were not assignabie, and that
decision, with the reasons on which it was found
| ed, was published in the newspaper4. The cor
RICHNESS Of that judgment has not, believe, been
seriously questioned: but, on the contrary, have
been assured by one or more of the COMMITTEES
who prepared the bill, that it was ia exact con-
formity with their Intentions | have seen no rea-
son, therefore, to change the opinion which then
deliberately formed. Indeed, do not understand
that am now asked to reverse my judgment be-
cause it was wrong. The application addressed
to is to change the tatc, in view or the *
sion of wish by Congress, in an informal man
ner, that it should be changed as TO render war
rants assignable "
This application rests on a singular misconcep-
ton Of the principles Of law and of the functions
Of the different departments Of the government
The law is admitted to be in accordance with m
decision. Recognizing it to be so, the House or
Representatives passed joint resolution making
warrants assgnable. The Senate concurred n the
resolution, with amendments, and returned it to
the House, where it was lost from want oftme to
act on the amendments.
It is not pretended that Congress has changed
the law; but it is said, it indicated purpose to do
so; and, having failed 70 carry that purpose into
effect, |, mere executive officer, am gravely
| Ill al Il -rxaI-
and do what Congress would probably have done.
if it had carried its intentions into effect No ar.
gument can be necessary TO prove that have no
power to do any such thing. II ! were to attempt
it. my action would Devoid, and justly expose me
to the mputaton of gross violation OF duty.
If the executive department should undertake 10
look beyond the acts of Congress, and to specu-
late as to what were the probable wishes Of the
majority Of the two HOUSES, where would be the
limits of their discretion, and what would become
of the division Of the powers Of the governments.
which is the safeguard of public liberty ana pri-
vee rights If were to be at liberty in this
case, to change the law, because there was known
to be majority in both Houses of Congress IA
vorable to the change, why might not the Secre
tary of the Treasury pay to Mr.. Richie the in
demnity which he sought, or the President direct
the disbursement of the large sums specified n
the river and harbor BILL to make improvem ents
contemplated by that bill; because il is quite a.
well known that maoriries Of both Houses were
in favor of those measures
b The appellant seems TO forget that there in some
| thing more than the assent Of the two Houses mr.
cessary to the validity of law, even when for.
maiy expressed. The sanction of the Presid emf
must be given to it, and although, in this particu
lar case, doubt not that the President would
have cheerfolly approved this net. if it had been
passed by Congress, | cannot forbear from adj
verng to the fact, that the principle contended for
by the appellant would abrognte practically the
whole power Of the Executive in this important
particular
am, very respectfully. your ODD sv't,
ALEX. H. Fl. STUART.