Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1851-03-22

the following letter to j. BUTTRRFIELD, ESQ.
Commissioner of the General Land Office, Civ.
ing his reasons for adhering to his former de-
cision in regard to the assgnability of land war
rants
DEPAHFMESr OF TIE INTERIOR,
WAsHISeroS, March Is, 1851.
sR: herewith return all the papers connected with the
appeal prayed by Mr. George B. Sargent in the case Of
Fielder Walker from your decision in regard to The assgna-
by OF land warrants under the act of September 49, $780,
have, without hesitation affirmed your decision. Shortly
after the passage Of the act had occasion examine with
great the question of the assgnaby Of issued
under it, then decdedh they assgnable andtha
decision, with the which il founded, pub
ished in the newspapers The Of that judgment
has not, believe been seriously questioned bur- on the
contrary have been assured by of the commit
tee who prepared the bill that conformity with
their Intentions have reason therefore, change
the opinion which then deliberately formed Indeed do
not understand that asked my judgment
because was wrong The application addressed 10
change the ia in view of the expression Of wish by Con-
gess in an informal manner that should be changed
70 render warrants assgnabe
This application rests singular misconcepion Of the
principles OF law and Of the functions OF the different depart
mens OF the Government. The law is admitted be in
codance with my decision. Recognising be So the House
Of Representatives passed joint resolution making warrants
assgnabe The Senate concuned in the resolution, with
amendments and returned the House, where it was lost
from want OF time to act on the amendments. .e4a
is not pretended that Congress has changed the law but
Il said, indicated purpose do and having failed
to carry that purpose into effect l. executive officer
am gavey called the province Of the Legisa-
ture, and to do what Congress would probably have one
It had carried its intentions into effect No argument be
necessary TO prove that have power do any such thing
If were to attempt my acon would be void, and Justly
expose me to the impua,on Of gross violation Of duty.
If the Executive Department should undertake look
yond the acts of Congress- and speculate
probable wishes Of the majority Of the two Houses where
would be the limits of their discretion and what would be-
Of the division Of the powers of the Government which
is the great safeguard Of public liberty and private shtsl
were to be al liberty, in this IL change the law be-
cause there known to be majority in both Houses Of
Congress favorable to the change why might the Secre-
ary of the Treasury pay Mr. Richie the indemnity which
he sought the President direct the disbursement Of the
large specified in the river and harbor BILL to make i'm
provemens contemplated by that bill because it quite
well known that majores Of both Houses in favor
those measures
The appellant forget that there is something
than the of the Houses necessary to the validity
Of law when formally expressed. The sanction
the President must be given it and although in this par
cua case doubt the President would have cheer
fully approved the act if it had been passed by Congress-
cannot forbear from adverng to the fact that The principle
commended for by the appellant would abogae practically h
whole power Of the Executive in this important particular
am, very respectfully, your obedient servant
ALEX. H. H. STUART.