The republic., 1851-03-18
Tho Bounty Land Law.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INrEnIoR,
WAsHINGroN. March Is. 186

DEPARTMENT THE INrEnIoR,
WAsHINaroN, March l5, 1851.
SIR herewith return all the papers connected
with the appeal, prayed by Mr.. George B. Sargent
in regard to the nssgnablity Of land warrants un-
der the act of September %, 1850.
have, without hesitation, affirmed your de-
csion. Shortly after the passage of the act, had
occasion to examine, with great carc the question
of the ASST gnability of warrants issued under It,
then decided that they were not assignablc, 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 questioned; but. on the contrary,
have been assured, by one or more Of the committee
who prepared the BILL that it in exact conform
ity with their intentions. have seen reason,
therefore, to change the opinion which Ithen dclib-
crately formed. Indeed, do not understand that
lam now asked to reverse my judgment because it
was wrong. The application addressed to me is to
change the la,u in view of the expression Of wish
by Congress, in informal manner, that it should
be 30 changed as to render warrants assignable
This application rests on q 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 my
decision. Recognising it to be SO, the House OF
Representatives passed joint resolution making
warrants assignable. Tho Senate concurrcd in the
resolution, with amendments, and returned it to
the House, where it was lost from want of time
to act on the amendments.
II 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
effect, /, mere executive officer, am gravcly
called on to assume tho province of the Legisla-
ture, and to do what Congress would proba-
bly, have done, if it had carried its intentions
into effect No argument can be necessary to prove
that have power TO do any such thing. If ]
were to attempt it my action would be void, and
justly expose me to the imputation Of gross vio-
lation Of duty. i
If the Executive Departments should undertake
to look beyond the acts Of Congress- and to specu-
late what were the probable wishes of the major
ity of the two Houses, where would be the limits
to their discretion, and what would become ol
the division Of tho powers of the Government
which is the great safeguard of public lib
erty and private right? If were to be at lib
erty, 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 specified
in the River and Harbor bill, to make improv
contemplated by that bill because il is quite as well
known that majorities of both Houses were in favor
| of those measuresf
The appellant seems to forget that there is some
thing more than the assent of the two Houses ne
cessary to the validity of law, even when formally
expressed. The sanction of the President must be
given to il; and although, in this particular case,
doubt not that the President would have cheerfully
approved the act, if it had been passed by Congress
cannot forbear from sdvcrting to the fact that the
principle contcndcd for by the appellant would alb
rogate practically the whole power Of the Executive
in this important particular.
am, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
| (Signed) ALEX. H. II. STUART,
| 80, Secretary.
| j. BuTrERriELD, esq.,, M ~ ass
Commissioner ofthe General Land Office