The southern press. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1850-1852, 1852-05-19
FSr ths Soukhsrw Press.
Relies 81 Scraps and Ausln1s.
CONSTITUTIONAL OBJECTIONS.
No. ~.

CONSTITUTIONAL OBJECTIONS.
A member Of the House of Representatives,
in late debate on the homestead bill, declared
that constitutional objections were pure gam
mop," and many others appear TO be of the
same opinion. The national domain seems fast
becoming a mere fund for extravaganza and
corruption, and what is in fact the common
property of all equally, is now entirely subservi
ent to President making The States are sub
sidized by grants of millions of acres, 10 be
wasted in abortive schemes of private specula-
ton; and the people by donations of farms, on
the sole condition of proving themselves too
poor to cultivate them.
The only provision of the Constitution, appli-
cable to this subject, that am acquainted with,
is as follows: "Congress shall have power to
dispose Of and make all needful regulations re-
specting the territory or other property belong
ing to the United States" Does this convey
the power of giving it away to whom Congress
pleases To dispose Of property in the strict APP
pcation of the term, means to sell it to the best
advantage, or exchange it fora reasonable equiv
alent 1t certainly does not mean to give it
away for nothing Had this been the intention,
power so important, and so liable to abuse,
would have been conveyed in words too exact
ard specific to be mistaken Neither does the
phraze "to make all needfu regulations respect
ing the territory or other property belonging TO
the United States" convey any such power, un-
less it can be proved that to waste, or give away
the property Of the United States, is absolutely
"needful" for its preservation. "Needful regu'
lations'' could only have reference to such as
were necessary to render this common property
most conducive to the general benefit by uni
form system, through the operation Of which
every citizen of the United States would be
equally benefited either by its sale or its rur-
chase.
One Of the arguments most relied upon to
justify this usurpation of power over the public
lands, is that by appropriating them to the con-
sruction of railroads, in State all the Others
are collaterally benefited. Now, it may be
asked, if the construction of a railroad, or canal
which has direct and inevitable tendency to
direct the whole, or n portion Of its Internal
trade from one State to ant Their, is either bene
fetal to that State or to the general prosperity
of the United States? 1t is only giving to one
what is taken from another--robbing Peter to
pay Paul.
Another most potential argument in favor OF
the exercise of this arbitrary rower over the
public lands, is, that by giving away one half
the other half will become more valuable than
the whole was before This is an assumption
of fact which is yet to be proved A large
portion of these railroad pets of Congressiona
bounty, will, if ever ompleted-which is ex
tremely doubtful--run through regions in a
great measure uninhabited, and connect not
great cities already in existence, but those only
existing in perspective. They run from nobody
knows whence to nobody knows where, through
uninhabited regions, from one unnhabited waste
to another. Can it be supposed for moment
that such undertakings will be profitable, and il
not profitable that they will not speedily fall
into decay and ruin, should they ever be com.
pleted, like large portion of those, for which
the States, some years ago, incurred debt Of
2oO,000OOo to England and the disgrace Of
DdllkTuptCy OcoIuoo. Ill tuuI CaSc ~ may pt
asked, on what ground has any man right to
assume, that these abortive projects will double
the value ofthe remaining United States lands
after half of them has been wasted in their pros
ecution But admitting this may not be the
case, and the anticipation be realized, it must be
obvious that the States through which these
railroads pass, and the points with which they
connect, will have their just share in the bene
fits they may confer Their property, of al
kinds, will be equally enhanced, and why
should they not pay their share of the expence
Why should they not make equal sacrifices fol
good of which they will enjoy the creates
portion, instead of placing the whole burden OF
the shoulders of others! This is neither JUS
! nor constitutional But justice between States
is now superseded by the "higher law" ant
constitutional objections are pure CANNON
| fear it will not be long before the Constiu
ton itself will be all pure CANNON. 1t is in
fair way of becoming out of date like an old al
manac, and nothing will remain but the lively,
signs on the title page.
1