Port Tobacco times, and Charles County advertiser. (Port Tobacco, Md.) 1845-1898, 1851-03-26
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
WAsHINGToN. March IS 1851.

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, I
WAsHNGToN, March IS 1851.
Sir: herewith return all The papers con-
nec.ed with the appeal, pravedb by Mr.. George
B. Sargent in the case Of Fielder w er,
from your decision in regard to the assign
ability of land warrants under The acl of
September %. 1850.
] have, without hesitation, affirmed your
decision. Shortly after the passage Of the
act, ! had occasion TO examine, with grea,
care, the question of the assign ability Of war
rants issued under it. then decided thai,
they were not assignable. and that decision,
with the reasons on which it was founded,
was published in the newspapers. The cor
RICHNESS of that judgment has not, believe,
been seriously questioned; bur, on the con.
trary, have been assured. by one or more
at the committee who prepared the bill, that
i, was in exact conformity with their inten-
lions. have seen no reason, therefore, to
change the opinion " hich then deliberate
" formed. Indeed. do no! understand that
! am now asked 10 reverse my jndgmen, be-
cause 1t was wrong. The application adj
dressed 10 me is to change the lac. in view
of the expfesson OF wish by Congress, in
an informal manner, that it should be so
changed as to render warrants assignable.
This application rests on singular mis-
conception 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 my decision. Re-
cognizing ii be so, the House of Represent
ts.ives passed a Joint solution makin wdr
rants assignable. The Senate concurred
in the resolution, with amendments, and re-
turned it TO the House, where it was los,
from want Of time 10 ACT on the amendments.
Ills no, pretended that Congress has chan
ged the law but j. is said, it indicated a
purpose to do SO and. having failed 10 car
nv lhs. purpose into effect. !, mere expcu-
live officer, am gravely called on to assume
the province Of the Legislature. aud to do
what Congress would probably have done,
if II had carried it intentions into effect. n 4"
argument can be necessary To prove tina, !
have no power to do any such Thing. If |
we're to attempt il my action would be VOID,
and Justly expose me to the ImpuiaIon oil d
gross violation OF duty.
If the Executive Department should I'M
dertake To look beyond the acis Of Congress
and To speculate as what were the probable
wishes of The ma nr,y Of the tw" Houses,
where would be The limits of their dlscrp
lion, and hat would become of The division
of the powers of the government, which Is
The great safeguard of public liberty, and
private rights. II were to be al liberty, IN
his case. to change The law, because ,hel e
was known To be a ma nri,v in both Houses
of Congress favorable TO the change. why
might no, the Secretary of The Treasury
pay to NJ. Richie The indemnify which he
sought, or the PreSiJen, direc, the diSbnrse-
ment of the large sums specified ia the River
and Harbor bill. to make Improvements con-
'empaIed by tina. bill because il is quite as
well known ,ha! majorlies of both Houses
were in favor of those measures
The appellant seems 10 forge, that there
| is something more than the sssen, Of the
TWO Houses necessary to the validity Of a
law, even when formally expressed. The
sanction Of the President mus, be given TO
it; and although, IN this particular case,
doub. no, that the President would have
cheer(ully approved the act, if il had been
passed by Congress, ! canno, forbear from
adverling to The fact. tina. the principle con-
tended for by The appellant would ahrogaie
practically the whole power of the Execu-
live in this important particular.
am, terry respectfully, your obedient SER
want (S'gned,)
! ALEX II. II STUART.