Cooper's Clarksburg register. [volume] (Clarksburg, Va. [W. Va.]) 1851-1861, 1852-06-02
REMARKS


REMARKS
Of M, Beals, Of Virginia, on thA Homestead Bill.
8, 1852
The House being In Committee Of the
Whole on the state Of the Union, and hav.
ing under consideration the Homestead
Bilh--
Mr.. BEAlE obtained the floor. and said :
Mr, Chairman; I wish to give my opin'
ion on this bill particularly. because it in
wolves vital political principles that are
about to be disregarded, can take but
limited view of this subject in the brief
time allowed me. In this debate the iin-
ger of scorn has been pointed to certain
class of politicians who have been demon
mated Abstractionists, Mr.. Madison, in
his report OF 1899, setting out the true
theory OF Federal powers, and Mr.. Jeffer-
son, in carrying out this theory in the
practical application Of our affairs during
MS administration, are the prominent Of
tenders of this class, and to those who
would direct its action to the acc omplish-
ment of selfish and sectional purposes
belong to the school of 1899. If the
plain construction of the Constitution in
the early and best days of the Republic is
right and true, this bill is in violation of
such opinions and the practices growing
out of them. No one doubts the just
power of this Government to raise money
But any one at all conversant with con-
stitutional law, ought also to know that
this power does not carry with it an un-
limited discretion in the use and applica-
ron of money. The objects to which Con-
gre's may make a just application of mo.
ney, or of public property, are limited by
the specific grants contained in the Con-
atitution, or to such other incidental pow.
srs only as are necessary and proper to
carry those grants into execution. This
may all have been done in error. 1t is
barely possible that Congress ought to
have had the power to suppress the liber.
ty of speech and of the press, to have es.
tablished a religion. &C.. DC. But the
tects are otherwise. This Government is
dsriTative in its character, and has no
beneficiary powers. That has been re-
served to the States apd to the domestic
circle untrammeled, as it should be. The
people and the States, in the fundamental
law, have chosen to intrust to you that
class ofPower by which, aud by which only,
you may work out the public good, Can
any one point out such grants Of power in
the Constitution, or such incidents, as
would characterize this bill as necessary
mode of procuring the public good in
conformity to the fundamental law? It
is scarcely pretended. 1t is spoken of as
an act of supreme benefcience--our feel
lngs of kindness and humanity are appea-
led int 10 haoaI L., Il
and had hoped the exploded doctrine of
Federalism, that we are neither bound by
the wal of our constituents nor constitu-
tional limitations, but may legislate at will
for the public eelfare, ! would ask De-
noerats-who will forgive this repetition
have you any means of promoting the
public welfare, except you confne your
legislation within the pale of the Consti.
tution? Have not the people and the
States chosen to limit your action by the
primordial law? If this is not so--if
this conclusion is an abstraction, where, l
ask, but in your own will and pleasure,
is the limitation 10 the most wild, expert.
mental, and chimerical projects Of legis,
lation ? Will gentlemen be so good as to
point out what project may not be under
taken and, therefore, justified, because Of
the reason that it admits of the application
Of money, or is characterized by lofty
benefcence? You have, therefore, no
constitutional power to pass this BILL
You are also restricted in the passage
of this bill by solemn compact. When
Virginia and other States ceded a large
amount of those lands, it was upon the
clear and well.known conditions that they
were to be used for the express purpose
of paying the. debts and defraying the
general charges and expenditures Of this
Government. Did you not accept them on
those terms, and, having so accepted them,
are you not bound, in good faith, to keep
holy and untouched the terms of the con-
tract? But some say, in answer to this
view, "Virginie was q party to the con-
tract Of the Constitution OF 1893, and by
her consent placed the public lands at the
disposal of this Government" The dis.
posal Of those lands had been placed there
before-there was no change expressed
or contemplated in the transfer to the new
Government, In proof Of the assertion,
there was no change in the action of tho
6opermnent in this relation for many years
of the good time of the Republic. Those
lands acquired by purchase, as we'll as by
donation. were used for the purposes set
out in the cessien act Of 1894. You have,
therefore, the construction the Govern
ment itself put upon this matter for the
last forty years, We have had advance
ment in Government affairs, but no revo-
luton that would abrogatc prcviously-ex.
listing contracts in relation to pecuniary
matters. But suppose We had, what is
the practice of nations in our own times
in, regard to this matter? Did not Louis
Philippe pay to tho United States twenty.
five millions of francs for captures made
of American property under the Imperial
Government of France after several rev.
.l..L:...- OIL II q