The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1852-05-20
OF VIRGINIA.

The House being D Committee of the Whole ON the
state OF the Union, and having under consideration the
MIR. BEALE obtained the floor, and said
Mr, CHAIRMAN: wish TO give my opinion on this bill
that are about 10 be dsregarded can take but Iimied
view ol TINS subject In the brief time allowed me. In
this debate the finger of scorn has been pointed To
certain class oil politicians who have been denomnated
absractions,s. MIR. Madison, in his report OF 1909.
setting out the true theory OF federal powers. and Mr.
Jefferson IN carrying out this theory in the practical ap
pcaiion oil our affairs during his administration,
the prominent offenders OF this class and 10 those who
would direct its action TO the accomplishment OF self
Of 1899 II the plain construction Of the consiitu-
ton the early and best days OF the republic right
and true. this bill is in violation Of such opinions and the
practices growing out OF them. No doubts the Just
power oil this government to raise money But any
al all conversant with constitutional law ought also to
know that this power does not carry with an unlimited
discretion in the and application oil money The OBJ
lects TO which Congress may make just application Of
money, or OF public property, are mfed BY the specific
incidental powers only as are necessary and proper TO
carry those grants into execution. This may all have
been done u error !, Is barely possible that Congress
speech and OF the press TO have established religion
&C.. &c But the facts are otherwise, This govern
men is dervave in lis character, and has beneficial
ry powers That has been reserved the States and TO
the domestic circle unammeled, as it should be. The
people and the States in the fundamental law have cho
sen to lnns 10 you that class OF power by which-dnd
by which only work out thepublc good. Can any
one point out such grants OF power in the constitution,
u
necessary mode OF procuring the public good in con-
formty TO the fundamental law! 1t is scarcely pre-
tended 1t is spoken OF act OF supreme benecence
our feelings OF Kindness and humanity appealed to-
ii is based merely upon the old, and had hoped
the exploded doctrine of federalism, that are neither
bound by the will of constituents nor constitutional
limitations, but may legisate at will for the public
Wdfare. l would ask democrats-who will forgive this
repetition have you any means OF promoting the
public welfare except you conne your legislation within
the pale OF the constitution Have not the people and
the States chosen to limit your action BY the prmordia
law L tins IS not So II this conclusion Is aa absrac
tion where ask, but in your will and pleasure, is
the Limitation to the most wild, experimental, and chmer
ical projects OF legislation Win gentlemen be good
as to point out what project may not be undertaken and
therefore justified, because OF the that it admits
of the application OF money characterized by lofty
benehcence' You have, therefore, no constitutional
You also restricted in the passage of this bill by
solemn compact When Virginia and other States ceded
welknown conditions that they were TO be used for the
express purpose OF paying the debts and defrayng
the general charges and expenditures of this govern
ment. Did you not accept them on those terms, and,
having so accepted tbem you not bound, in good
1 faith, TO keep holy and untouched the terms OF
the contracts But some say in answer TO this view,
i" Virginia was party TO the contract OF the con-
stiuon OF l7S9 and by her consent placed the public
lands the disposal OF this government" The disposal
LOT those lands had been placed there bcfore-there
was no change expressed or contemplated in the transfer
10 the new government In proof OF the assertion,
there was no change in the action Of the government
IN this relation Tor many years OF the good time of the
republic Those lands acquired by purchase, well
BY Donation used for the purposes out in the ces
sion act o ISL You have therefore, the construction
the government itself put upon this matter for the
last forty years We have had advancement in govern
nent affairs but no revolution that would abrogaie pre-
yousiyexistng contracts IN relation to pecunary matters
But suppose we had what is the practice OF nations
in our times in regard 10 this malier Did Louis
Philippe pay TO the United States twenty five millions OF
francs for captures made of American property under the
imperial government OF France after several revolutions
Shall our government feel itself less bound TO observe its
pecunay contracts, especially when II remembered that
this cession OF lands by the States at the period when
made removed existing imPedments, and greatly con.
tnbuted 10 the formation OF the Union Do not tell
me oil precedens IN the beslowal of the public lands
heretofore; they acts OF generous and unthnk-
ing benehcence to our own people struggling with the
difficulties OF settlement in new country, without
cautious reference to your legitimate power. You may.
for the effect il would have upon my Judgment as
well refer to the pecedents Of legislation volative
OF the rights OF speech and the liberty OF the press of
former period disregard legislative precedent when
opposed TO what esteem fundamental political truth.
The very act, however. which you about 10 perpe-
tate win probably be heraded precedent hereafter to
weaken the force OF constitutional obligation and to break
up tins noble fabric Of constitution and law into
veneD machinery TO advance sectional and party in
eresi OF TO manage more efficiently presidential cleo
ton.
The sole argument made use OF in this debate 10
sustain the constitutonality of this measure is the
mere assertion that the prominent object OF the gov
eminent in the acquisition OF new territory 10 its
settlement That settlement was a consequence fore
seen That II element entering into and con-
trong TO some extent, the idea OF its value 10 true;
that lis cultivation including the building up OF towrs
paled, is probable and formed, II you choose, laud-
able motive for action. But not brought back
the inquiry, Does the object TO be attained justify you in
this description OF means for its accomplishment And
does the history OF both the transfer and acquisition
by purchase OF those lands give very different but the
true view ofibe object intended by the government The
conventional government required OF the States the dona
tons that made Could ask, the convention which
formed the constitution have intended to violate the
terms OF the contract recently made with the States
Were not those transfers made for the purpose OF OBJ
tanning money for the OF the central government
at period OF great financial difficulty And were not
those acquired by purchase used and disposed of for
The identical purposes, wit pay the debt and defray
the general charges and expenditures of the government
The advocates Of this bill appear to admit that the do
mated lands were subject TO sale for the purposes OF
nue. but their argument based upon settlement is clearly
predcaied upon the presumption that the government by
the act OF purchase OF territory had also acquired
new and additional powers in the disposition OF those
lands which is peposerous, because If additional pow
be obtained in this way then time and peculiar
action may work obleraon of all constitutional mi-
tatons.
II this is fancy and fact, why then. you can not
only give them away, as you now contemplate, out you
also hire out Of the moneys OF the treasury both
to settle and to cultivate those lands which not pre-
tended The argument based upon settlement proves too
much, and therefore is fallacious. r
But suppose those barriers TO the passage OF this bill
were removed then, is wise and prudenti Ia 1t in
fomi,y 10 the plan of ancestors TO advance the best
life liberty and property OF sufficient OF itself Let
constitutes national greatness and individual happiness
tta ahnxUo rpaf1