Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1854-05-26
ISSUED SIMULTANEOUSLY AT MONTPELIER,

ton Of the President TO this bill, as
understand from his message, rests
upon constitutional considerations
lie regards il as an Infringement up
on the Constitution His heart APP
proves the object of the bill, but the
exercise of his best intellectual pow
ers does not enable him to find au-
thorlIy under the Constitution to
make the grant He seems painful
ly anxious TO approve the bill for the
vast amount Of good it would &C
complish, but the Constitution for
bids This bill, which makes a
grant of ten millions of acres of the
public lands TO he equilably appor-
toned among all the States, aud its
proceeds applied for the relief and
support of the INDECENT insane of the
country, he thinks is violation Of the
Constitution am unable to con-
cur in his opinion. | dissent from it
entirely, with all due respect to. the
authority from which t-emanates.-
This bill, undertake to say, more
nearly than any which has been pas
sed by Congress, and presented to
the consideration of any Executive,
carries opt, according to its spirit
and ITS letter, the original contract 10y
which the public lands were ceded to
the federal government by the States.
II differs from hundreds of acts
which have received the sanction of
every Congress and of every Presi-
dent almost from the foundation of
the Government, only insomuch as
1t is more general, more universal, if
no, more bencfcent in its operation.
Yet in the opinion Of our President
II is unconstitutional This, after
all, Is but the opinion of one man,
though that man may be President
of the United States. But | sup
pose that Presidents are not ALWAYS
Iniallible exposItors of the COnsiiu-
ton; that even President Pierce NAV
TALL INTO error on question Of con-
slltutOaal construction. Al any rate,
his opinion ia this instance is subject
To our examination and revision. Is
this, then, an unconstitutional act
We have already expressed our opin-
ion. by the passage Of the bill, that
II IS not. Every Congress and every
President under the Constitution
have expressed the opinion that ii is
not, 10y the passage and approval Of
bills involving the same principles
and the same question of power.
James Monroe and the Congress of
1919 found no constitutional difficult
~ IN making a grant of a township
of the public lands TO the State of
Connecticut for the benefit of an as
llum for the deaf and dumb. John
Quincy Adams and the Congress of
lo26 were not aware of committing
any lniractlon upon the Constitution
10 granting township Of the public
lands 10 the State of Kentucky for
like purpose. Were those acts con.
siiiuilonal and this unconstitutional
J hose acts, like this, were in aid of
objects of beneyolence and charity.
Those grants were 10 individual
states, aud to single and isolated OBJ
lects. This grant is to all the States.
and therein more just and equitable.
II there be any distinction IN priuci-
Pile 1t is IN favor of the bill now I'M
der consideration. Those acts, like
this, designated the object of the
grants, aud SO, by necessary infer
ence, restricted the States in the ap-
picalIon OF the proceeds of the grants
10 the object specified. This act diff
iers from those, lnsomuch as il en-
braces all of a particular class through
out the country. IL dlspenses its
blessings as far ana MS wide as the
scourge OF the malady ii proposes TO
relieve.
Let me here remark, in passing,
Iha, the power 10 dispose of the pub
lie understanding that Congress
has that power-carfies with il pro-
Prfo Digore the power to impose con
dlIIons. II would present an anon
ally IN legislation to make an appro-
PralIon OF money without specifying
the object of it. Would it be any
the less so to make grant of land
To State without designating the
object OF ii, and thereby restricting
the application of its proceeds to that
object This point requires no ar
gument. Where is the act upon
your statute-books granting lands to
any State which does not specify the
object of the grant, and thus, by ne
cessaly implication, restrict the State
in the application Of the proceeds Of
the grant TO the particular object spe-
Gifted 10 The actf So much ia an
swer to an objection very frequently /
pressed elsewhere, though not urged /
in the message, that under this bill
the States are constituted the mere
agents of the General Government to
dispense beneficiary donation.
Mr.. President, we have the author
ity Of other and even stronger pre-
cedents for This act than those | have
named, James Madison and the
Congress of 1912 do not seem TO
have been troubled with any of these
modern constitutional quirks which
forbade their appropriatlng $50, 900
from The National Treasury Tor the
relief OF citizens of Venezuela who
were left destitute and starving from
The ravages of terrific earthquake.