The southern press. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1850-1852, 1852-03-13


Tally to call The attention of members from The
old States. who are disposed TO raiss consiitu
tional question againt this bill. There is another
authority. which think will be considered upon
this side Of the House Democraticla very high
one, from which viii read General CAss, in
that debate, in presenting the reasons why he
would support the bill, said:
"1his bill does not touch the q lestion of in
ternal improvement a all. Ii asserts no right
on the part of this government to lay out road
or To regulate the construction Of 70 d. The
federal government is great land -holder il
possesses an extensive public domain and we
have the power, under the Constitution, TO dis
pose Of that domain ; and a very unlimited
power il u.s. The simple question is, what dis
position We may make Of the public lands No
one will contend for the doctrine that we cannot
give them away to State. AS the Senator
from Kentucky has said, every President has
signed bills asserting the principle that these
lands may be disposed of by the general gov
eminent, without restriction as to the purpose
Of such disposition. We may bestow them for
school purposes, or we may bestow portion
TOR the purpose of improving the value of the
rest. What right have you TO sit still and see
your lands growing in value, through the instru
mentality Of individuals, without rendering any
aid in furtherance OF that object Ii is the set
tlement of the lands that makes them valuable y
General CAss subsequently, in the same de-
bate, in reply TO constitutional issue made by
the gentleman from Alabama, Mr.. BAGBy,i in
a more pointed manner maintained the cnnstu-
tional power Of Congress TO dispose of por-
ton Of the public domain to enhance the value
OF the remaining portion. lie said
81 will answer the Senator. The general
government has nopower to make any railroad
| nal A. 4 n
a portion of the public domain to raise the value
OF the rest, is clearly within the power of this
| government"
find, Mr.. Speaker, in the 10Th volume of the
Congressional Globe" another debate upon
the bill granting alternate sections of the pub
lie lands to the State of Michigan, in which a
number OF senators participated believe that
at that time Mr.. NILES, of Connecticut, and Mr..
BAGBY, OF Alabama, were the only two sena-
tors who raised the constitutional question. In
that debate Mr.. CALHoUS said
"As far as the Michigan bill was concerned,
he understood the principle was simply giving
alternate sections Of the public land for the
purpose of enhancing the value Of the remainder
Upon this point be would say that he had not
the slightest doubt that the government not only
had the right, as proprietor of the public domain
to grant portions OF that domain for such a pur-
pose, but that it was the duty of the government
to do so. The government in his opinion, ought
to be ashamed of allowing their lands to be en-
HANGED in value by their exertions, and at the cost
ola State, without contributing in some degree
to produce this result"
On that occasion, Mr.. Niles, ir1reply to these
observations, charged Mr. Calhoun with incon.
sistency in voting for that bill, and with an
abandonment Of his doctrines upon the subj ct
of internal Improvement. Mr. Calhoun replied
to the Senator from Connecticut, as follows:
:" He (Mr CO. acted now on the principle on
which he had acted from the beginning prin-
ciple perfectly clear; and not only was it clearly
the right OF the government to make these
grants, but he considered that it was the duty
of the government to do so. They did not in
so doing, act in their sovereign capacity. The
question of internal improvements was not at all
involved, but simply that of propretorshp,
whether, when anything was done to enhance
the value of their lands in the vicinity of the
works, they were not called on and bound in
good faith to contribute something as the pro-
prietors."
He said, further:
But, in this, ard in all cases where a road
passed through the public lands, and application
was made whan tho work had boon commenced
and there was reasonable probability that the
value OF the public lands would be enhanced,
he was in favor of contributing largely, and in
so doing he abandoned no principle. AS far as
he cou+d Judge of the localities the canal would
be of vast importance. The lands intermediate
between the termini would be greatly Increased
in value. AS to the railroad he could not ex-
press any opinion, but was DESTROYS to see it
completed, and for that purpose was willing to
grant the desired appropriation, on condition
only that the government should have the use of
it when required for thu conveyance of stores
and troops"
1t appears that explanation did not satisfy Mr..
Niles, and he expressed the conviction that there
was no difference at all between voting for the
Cumberland road and for giving alternate Sec
tons of the public lands, Mr.. Calhoun replies
Mr. c. remarked, in reply, that if the gentle.
man could not see distinction between the case
of the Cumberland ROAD work undertaken bv
the general governmeht-and the case in which
the government in its proprietary character, con-
tributes to works undertaken by States or indi-
viduals. he (Nr. CO. could only express his re.
greet. TO him the difference was as great as
that between night and day. In the one case
there was an exercise Of the right of sovereignty,
in the other simply that of ownership"
| Mr.. Speaker, page after page of authorities
equally clear and explicit from nearly all of our
| brightest ana most conservative statesmen, ex-
tending through period of more than twenty
years, might be adduced, but | forbear reading
further quotations lest the House may be weari-
ed. The description of internal improvements
objected to, as understood, by the Republican
or Democratic party, is that where the govern.
ment appropriates money om Of The public reasu-
ry for the purpose of building roads, or construc
ting canals, in certain localities In the first
place. it is said truly that Congress- has No riobt
to levy money upon the people of the United
States for the purpose of constructing such
works. That power is not granted by the Con
stitution. Corcedng however, tht the gov.
eminent possessed the power, one of the strong
| nhiectinns and 10 mind i