The southern press., 1852-03-13

THIS Is one Authority to which wish espacl-
ally to call the attention Of members from the
old States, who ara disposed to Faisu consiitu
tional Question againt this bill There Is another
authority, which think will BIO considered upon
this side of the House Democratic very high
one, from which will read. General CAss, in
that debate, in presenting the reasons why he
would support the bill, said:
This bill does not touch the question of in
ternal Improvement at ALL Ii asserts no right
on the part Of this government to lay out a road
or to regulate the construction of rold. The
| federal government is great land holder it
possesses an extensive public domain; and we
have the power, under the Constitution, to dis
pose OF that domain and very unlimited
power il is. 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
for 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 iastru.
mentality of individuals, without rendering any
aid in furtherance Of that object II is the set
tlement of the lands that makes them valuable"
General CAss subsequently, in the same de-
bate, in reply to q constitutional issue made by
the gentleman from Alabama, Mr. BAGBY1 in
a more pointed manner maintained the cnnstitu-
tonal power of Congress to dispose Of por-
ton OF the public domain to enhance the value
of the remaining portion. He said
| II will answer the Senator The general
government has no power to make any railroad
or canal through any State; but the disposal Of
portion of the public domain to raise the value
OF the rest, IS clearly within the power Of this
lgauornnian
find, Mr.. Speaker, in the 18th volume ofthe
Congressional Globe,' another debate upon
the bill granting alternate sections of the pub.
lie lands to the State of Michigan, in which
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.. CALHOUN said
AS far as the Michigan bill was concerned,
ne 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, bal 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 ,st
OF State without contributing in some degree
to produce this result"
On that occasion, Mr.. Niles, in reply 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
IfoD M NJ H. i
to the Senator from Connecticut as follows:
:" He Mr.. CD acted now on the principle on
which he had acted from the beginning prin
ciple perfectly clear; and not only was il 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 al all
involved, but simply that of propretorship
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."
lie said, further:
Bot, in this, ard in all cases where road
passed through the public lands, and application
was made when the work had been commenced,
and there was reasonable probability that the
value OF the public lands would be enhanced,
ne was in favor Of contributing largely, and in
so doing he abandoned no principle, As far as
he could judge Of The localities the canal would
be ofyast Importance. The lands intermediate
between the teruini would be greatly Increased
in value. As to the railroad he could not ex.
press any opinion, but was DESTROYS to see il
completed, and for that purpose was willing TO
grant the desired appropriation, on condition
only that the government should have the use Of
II when required for the conveyance Of stores
and troops"
1t appears that explanation did not satisfy MI.
Niles, and he expressed the conviction that there
was no difference at all bctween 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 n distinction between the ease
Of the Cumberland road work undertaken by
the general government-and the case in which
the government In its proprietary character, con.
tributes 10 works underiakenby States or irdi.
viiuals, he (Mr CD could only express his re.
greet To him the difference was as great as
that between night and day. In the one ease
there was an-exerrse Of the right Of sOyereignty.
in the other simply that Of ownership"
Mr.. Speaker, page after page Of authorities
equally clear and explicit, from nearly all Of our
brightest and most conservative statesmen. ex.
tending through period Of more than twenty
years, might be adduced, bat forbear reading
further quotations lest the House may be wear.
ed. The description Of internal improvements
objected to, rs ! understood, by the Republican
or Democratic party is that where the govern. !
ment aPpropriates money om Of the public treasu.
W for the purpose Of binding roads, or cons.ruc
ting canals, in certain localities In the first
place, Il Is said, truly, that Congress has no right
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. |
stitudon. Conceding, however, thst the rov. |
eminent possessed the power, one Of The strong
objections, and to my mind an insuperable ob
jection against the exercise Of Il, would be that
you levy money Unfortunately, all ever the
country nnnn al of the cifiznns. and In 60.