The southern press. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1850-1852, 1851-06-04

WEBSTER and MIR. CLAY on Mr. CRiRTrE kpErs
amendment to the Presumption bill, January 80
lS4l, Dir CALHOUN fully and explicitly explained
his views on this subject, and we advise the edi-
tor to read that speech before again yenturing
to class together in the same category such ad-
verse schemes those of Mr.. WEBSTER, CAss
and CALHOUN, on the authority of assertions
made in the speeches of their antagonists.
Before proceed TO discuss that question, it
will be well TO ascertain what is the extent and
value of the property embraced. The public do
main, as has been frequently stated in thecourse
Of the debate, embraces more than one thousand
millions of acres and the other property includes
the public buildings, dock and navy yards, forts,
arsenals, magazines ships CT war, cannon, arms of
all descriptions, navastores,a and munitions Of war
1t is difficult to estimate the value Of the whole
The public domain alone, according estimate of
the gentlemen mot mine,) at y 20 per acre, is
worth upward of q 200, 100000; and, includ-
ing the value Of the other property, the whole,
at the lowest estimate must far exceed s $780,
100000, and probably would equal not less than
$4,000, 100000 Such is the extent and value
of the property over which the two senators
claim for Congress unlimited and absolute right
| to dispose of at its goodwill and pleasure And
the question recurs. Have they such right
A graver question has never been presented for
our consideration, whether we regard the prin-
ciples, the amount of property, or the conse-
quences involved.
| Now, sir, in order to test the right, it ia my
intention to PROFOUND few questions to the
senators, to which hope they will give explicit
answers. Suppose, then, in the progress of
time, an administration should come in q make
| no allusion to the nexD which should think an
foI,l oh ind; 10 al 4,
MORALS the religion, and the political institutions
of the country: would it have the right to elect
some one Of the religious sects-say the Metho-
dist, Baptist, Presbyterian, Episcopalian or Cath
olic-and erect it into splendid hierarchy, by
endowng it out Of this ample fund!
Mr. Webster: "The Constitution expressly
prohibits it,"
hear the answer with pleasure It assigns
the true reason Here, then, we have limita
ton in the Constitution, by the confession of
the senator and, of course, there is one restric-
ton, at least, on the unlimited right which he
and his friend claimed for Congress over this
vast fund. Having made good this step, L pro-
coed to take another.
Suppose, then, that such an administration
should undertake to colonize A frica, with the view
of outstanding and civilizing it, and, for that
purpose, should propose TO rest This pasi fund, or
Congress have the right of doing 80? Or, TO take
still stronger case, suppose majority Of Con-
gress should become AboliltOnists !; would it have
the right to distribute this vast sum among the
various abolition societies, to enable them to
carry out their fanatical schemes! The senator
is silent. did not anticipate an answer. He
cannot say yes and to say no would be to sur
render the whole ground. Nor can he say, as
he did, that it is prohibited by the Constitution.
will relieve the senator. / answer for him:
Congress has no such right, and cannot exercise
it without violation Of the Constitution. But
why not The answer is simple, but decisive :
because Congress has not the right to exercise
any power except what is expressly granted by
the Constitution, or may be necessary to exc
cute the granted powers and that in question is
neither granted, nor necessary to execute grant
ed power.
Haviny-gained this important point l next
ask the senators, Would Congress have the right
to appropriate the whole, or part, of this vast
fund TO be drawn directly from the treasury, in
payment of the principal or interest to the State
bonds! And if not Gas they certainly would not,
for the reason already assigned,) has it the right
10 give it to the States to be SO applied Can it
do that indirectly by an agent, which it cannot
constitutionaly do directly by itself? If so
would be glad to hear the reason. | might pro-
coed and PROFOUND question after question,equa
ly embarrassing; but abstain, lest | should eX-
haust the patience of the Senate.
But there is one question of a different cha
racter which | must PROFOUND, and to which
would be glad 10 have the answers of the two
| ingenious and learned senator's. They are both
agreed, as now understand the senator from
Massachusetts,, that the revenue from taxes can
be applied only to the objects specifically emu
nerated in the Constitution, and in repudatng
the general welfare principle, as applied to the
money power, as far as the revenue may be de-
rived from that source. To this extent, they
profess to be good State Rights Jeffersonian
Republicans Now, sir, would be happy to be
informed by either Of the able senator's regret
that one (Mr. Clay is not in his seat--by what
political alchymy the revenue from taxes, by
being vested in land or other property, can, when
again turned into revenue by sales, be entirely
| freed from all the constitutional restrictions to
which they were liable before the investment,
according to their own confessions A satisfac-
tory explanation of so curious and apparently
incomprehensible process would be treat
| The senator from Kentucky (Mr. Clay) failing
| to find any argument to sustain the broad and
| unqualified right of distributing the revenue
| from the public lands as Congress might think
proper, sought to establish it by precedent
distribution of arms among the States; which,
he contended, sanctioned also the dstribu ton of
the revenue from the lands among them. The
senator forgot that it is made the duty of Con-
gress, under an express provision of the Consti-
tuition. "to provide for armng the milira;" and
that the militia force belongs to the States, and
not to the Union and, Of course, that, in dis
tributing arms among the States with the view
of arming them, Congress but fulfls duty en-
joined on them by the Constitution.
The palpable misconception, as must consider
it, into which the two senators have fallen in re-
ference to this important question, originates,
| conceive, in overlooking other provisions of
the Constitution. They seem not to advert to
the fact that the lands belong to the United
States-that is, TO the States iWtheir united and
federal character; and that the government, in
stead Of being the absolute proprietor, is but an
: agent appointed to manage the joint concern
They overlook still more important consider
a IL. =