Washington sentinel., 1854-06-20

ptbpCtlJJ ~ 10 W Uc EcHGtuHeTcQ IQaL IL Is the
property of all the States. You cannot give it
70 any one State without consideration, so long
as It has value, and is the property of all the
States.
This is not the only limitation. There is
another which viii suggest itself TO any one.
upon moments consideration. The property
or the United States may lie within the bound
airy OF State. 1t may be subject to a double
jurisdiction the jurisdiction of the State, and
OF the United States. Now, it is fair rule of
construction, in such cases, that each must ex-
ercise It's own power so as not to interfere with
the equal powers of the other; that is to say,
the government Of the United States must so
exercise its power in regard TO this property
power which was given to it for its preserva-
ton, its management, and its improvement
as not to interfere with the equal right of the
State to a certain jurisdiction over it. For in.
stance, if it be the policy of the State to ex-
clude Indians, and there were no Indians there,
the United States cannot force upon their land
an Indian settlement in despite of the State.
If it were the policy of the State to prohibit
primogeniture, the United States could not un.
dertake to make giants, to be avoided in the
event that the grantees ever departed from the
rule OF primogeniture. Whilst the United
States would have no power to give away that
which was the property of all, they would man,
ifestly have no power to impose such restraints
upon the lands, which were within the bound
aries OF Il State, as forever to lock them up and
prevent their being filed up and settled. It is
evident, therefore, that in the exercise Of these
powers, when you come to property situated
within n State, there is limitation upon the
powers Of ,he general government The United
States must observe certain .degree of re-.
spect for the equal powers Of the State, which,
in certain matters, exists in relation to the
same property. The United States could not,
in the execution OF their power, undertake to
say they would dispose of the lands to indivd-
uals on condition that they should forever be
exempt from debt, and thus use their right of
property for the purpose Of affecting the local
legislation of the State.
This government could impose no such lini-
tations, because in doing so it would be inter
fering with the jurisdiction of the States, which
in regard to all these matters, is complete and
exclusive, except TO the extent that the United
States have right to interfere for the preser
vation and management of their property, as
property.
] say, then, sir, that neither branch Of this
double grant OF power is unlimited. have
shown that it is limited by other provisions in
The Constitution, and think have shown that
it cannot be unlimited, because if it we're, j,
would lead to this, that all of the leading and
manifest intentions OF the trainers of the Con-
stitution, when they made that an instrument
of limited powers, and undertook to distribute
under it powers between the States and the
federal government, would thus be defeated
and all of their efforts would have been vain
and nugatory. In order to carry out their in
tention and design, in order to save our scheme
n frpv itSaf yya ara Nd 90
that limitations exist; and if limitations do
exist, none other can be shown than those
which have shown to be derived from the
very nature and context of the instrument it.
self
But Mr. President, another source of au-
thority has been endeavored to be established;
and gentlemen who maintain that there is an
unlimited power in the United States to dis.
pose OF the public property, or its proceeds,
have endeayored to rest ii on, or to sustain and
support it, by precedent. The senator from
North Carolina, Mr.. BADGER, who argued
this question with great ability, produced yari-
Gus precedents for the purpose of showing that
Congress had exercised such powers, and in or
der TO lead as to the conclusion that having ex.
ercised them heretofore, it might do so hereafter
! shall not now pause to look into those prece-
dents. l think, if it were necessary to do SO,
could show that many Of them do not apply to
the matter IN hand, and are not analogous to
tle case which we are now considering. He
has endeavored to derive sanction for his doc
trine from such names as those of jackson,
and Calhoun, and Woodbury.; and yet it is
well known that the matured opinions of those
distinguished persons were formed and de.
clared against this monstrous construction.
"a In 1888, President jackson vetoed a bill for
Tho lisfribntinn of tho ,,ronaaIo &c tbo oloa &c
the public lands, and returned it in message
in which he assigned strong constitutional OBJ
jections TO the measure. In lS4l, and in the
debate upon similar bill, Mr. Calhoun said:
"Ifthis bill should become law. it would make
a wider breach in the Constitution, and be follow
ed by changes more disastrous, than any one mea-
sure which has ever been adopted II would, in
It's violation OF the Constitution, go far beyond the
general welfare doctrine of former days which
stretched the power OF the government as far as
i was then supposed possible, by construction
however bold But as wide as were the limits,
while this bill, as | shall show, rests on principles
which, if admitted, would supersede all limits
In the same debate, Mr.. Woodbury. said:
But the argument which allows you to give
away the whole OF our princely domain, extend
ing from the Atlantic 10 the Rocky Mountains,
and even 10 the Pacific ocean, to bestow our whole
navy, our numerous Notifications, this very hall
where we deliberate. and these 10 any and every
object however local, narrow. or sectional and 10
be applied, if any Stale chooses, the erection of
mere jails, bounty on wolf scaps, or the mos,
paltry matter of domestic police, putrages all the
restrictions in The Constitution and declares open
war with The Virginia platform of '9s In fine, il
goes as much beyond the doctrine Of the general
welfare, as that goes beyond The limitation Of vari.
Gus specific objects enumerated in the Consti,u.
tion.o
! might quote other distinguished authorities,
such as that Of Silas Wright for similar
opinion. But choose to take higher ground,
and to examine this claim of power to alter
or change the Constitution of the United States
under the pretence Of constituting or interpret
ing it.
Sir, upon what rests this authority which is
claimed for precedents? Manifestly upon one
of TWO grounds; either that these precedents,
flong continued, show such weight of human
authority and human opinion on the one side
as must and should control the right of private
judgment, and the exercise OF individual reason
in regard to it; or else that the iong-continued
and oft-repeated exercise of power by gov
must at least be considered as having
the implied assent of the Constitution, making
power, and thus, by implication, to have made
the Constitution what those precedents make it.