Daily national era. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1854, 1854-06-19


harbors Of refuge within the States and provides
regulation for the construction and management
OF steamboats, on nayigable waters within the
States. Is that equivalent to usurpation Of the
entire control over commerce and navigation
within the States? Congress distributes seeds
and treatises on agriculture Is that equivalent
to an usurpation of jurisdiction over agriculture
throughout the States2 Congress discrminates
by bounties, draw backs, and duties, so to favor
agriculture the fisheries, and manufactures. Is
that equivalent to an assumption OF supreme and
exclusive power over all those great national in
terests2 Congress prescribes regulations OF the
militia, and furnishes TO the States arms ammu-
milton, and ordnance, for the equipment and ex-
ercise of the militia Is that equivalent TO an
usurpation of the entire support, control, and
direction of the armed police of the States 81
call your attention, next, sir, to the fact that
this message presents unfairly the relative struc-
lures and characters of the Federal Union and OF
the States. The President says t" Are we not
too prone to forget that the Federal Union is the
creature of the States, and not they of the Fed
eral Union Z" And again he says that the
independent and sovereign States united them
selves for certain specified objects and purposes,
and for those only" thereby implying that the
States still entirely sovereign, while the Fed
eral Government is mere Confederation, and
not equally sovereign within its sphere. Now,
lures of the Federal Union but it is equally true,
in my judgment, that the Federal Union is not
the creature of the States. Both are States con-
nected with and yet independent OF each other.
Each of them was established directly by the
people-the several State Governments by the
people Of the States respectively and the Federal
Union by the people of all the States. Each is
shorn of some attributes of sovereignty, and each
is supreme within its sphere.
1.a.,
into the discussion and discussing question
whether power to pass the bill can be derived
from the eighth section of the Constitution, which
gives Congress the authority to lay and collect
taxes, duties, imposts, and excuses, to pay the
debts and provide for the common defence and
welfare of the United States" No member OF
Congress has advocated that principle, since this
bill was inaugurated, halfa dozen years ago. The
principle is obsolete if it ever had advocates. No
statesman has advocated it, in out of Congress,
for period of forty years.
While, therefore, the Presidents expostions on
that subject may serve to raise preudices against
the BILL it quite certain that they altogether
foreign from a consideration of its merits.
If it shall seem to you, Mr.. President, that the
criticisms | have offered on the message might
have been spared, hope it will be a sufficient
defence to say that those criticisms dispose of two
thirds of the entire message of the President, and
leave only two or three points in the whole case
to be examined. In the manner have described,
the President reaches at last the principal ques-
ton, viz: whether Congress has power to pass
this bill by virtue of the third section of the fourth
article of the Constitution, which is as follows
t1The Congress shall have power to dispose OF,
and make all needful rules and regulations re-
specting, the territory other property belong
ing to the United States; and nothing in this
Constitution shall be SO construed as to prcju-
dice any claims of the United States or OF any
| particular State"
The President denies that this section contains
the power claimed by Congress. Now, it is APP
parent, first, that the land appropriated by the
bill is part of "the territory or other property
Of the United States" and, secondly, that the
term "to dispose of includes any way and ev-
cry way by which Congress can dvest the United
States of those lands whether by sales to States
individuals, by gifts to States or individuals
re bill apportions and bestows the lands
among and upon the States and is therefore
constitutional, unless it can be shown that the
absolute power contained in that section is limit
ed by some other provision of the Constitution,
which inhibits the proposed disposal OF them.
The President says that there is such an inhibi-
ton, and he finds it in the last clause of the
ton collated with the 9th article, which is as fol-
lows to wit: " All debts contracted and engage
ments entered into, before the adoption of this
Constitution, shall be as valid against the Uni
ted States as under the Confederation" The
President brings into this connection provision
contained in the deed by which Virginia coded
her share of the public domain of the United
States to wit "All the lands within the Terri
tory so ceded to the United States, and not re-
served for or appropriated TO, any of the before
mentioned purposes, or disposed of in bounties
10 the officers and soldiers of the American army
shall be considered a common fund for the use
and benefit of such of the United States as have
become or shall become members of the Con-
federation or Federal Alliance of the said States,
Virginia included according to their usual
respective proportions in the general charge
and expenditure, and shall be faithfully and
bona .fde disposed of for that purpose, and for
no other purpose whatever" The President
adds. "Here the object for which these lands
are to be disposed OF is clearly set forth" And
he adds, that /" the provisions recited not only
contain no implication in favor of the contem-
plated grant, but furnish the strongest authority
against IT,"
proceed to examine this argument, and re-
mark first that the words quoted from the 3D.
section of the 4th article of the Constitution,
viz And nothing in this Constitution shall be
so construed as to prejudice any claims of the
United States, or of any particular State have
no application here.
NcAs..ss~fNN
tors in the Fedeaiist, that there was, at the time
of the adoption of the Constitution, much uncer-
tainty about the boundary lines between the
States, and of course their respective titles TO,
or interest in, the unoccupied domain which was
ceded by the several States to the United States,
and also that all of the States interested in the
said domain had not executed deeds of cession
Mt the time the Constitution was framed by the
Convention; and we know, from the same evil
dence that the clause relied upon by the Pres-
dent was designed merely TO save any such
rights or titles which had not been and should
not be ceded to the United States, and also at the
same time to save just claims which the United
States had, by or independent of such deeds OF
cession. Now, it is absurd to say that the bill
before us prejudices any claim Of the United
States for il assumes that the property disposed
of is exclusively the property of the United States.
1t is equally absurd to say that II prejudices the
claim of any particular State; for no State has
laid any claim, or can lay any claim, to the lands
in question. This disposes of the supposed lin
ithtion in the Sd section of the 4th article.